Highly recommend watching this lengthy conversation between Bill Kristol and Ronald Brownstein. Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons (imo) for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately.
Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately.
Thanks for sharing that. I will be listening.
I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.
The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.
There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.
Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.
You've intuited his position perfectly. I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. One thing that is certain is that it's going to take an incredible states(wo)man to bridge the current divide and prevent a national catastrophe. Seems extremely unlikely at this point.
Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. That actually seems like a legitimate possibility now if we can't somehow find some common ground between those who seem to hold incompatible worldviews.
Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right.
The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.
This is mostly perception and plays into the dichotomy where it concerns social progressivism or conservatism only. Both parties, however, work for the highest bidder (e.g. corporations) and whether you vote Democrat or Republican is a "same difference" where it comes to what laws and regulations would be passed.
It makes the perceived juxtaposition rather tragic.
Haven't got time to watch that yet, but the media is selling division on both sides and it is getting worse and worse. Yet another reason to make regulated state run media dominant. The profit motive of media most perniciously taken advantage of by Rupert Murdoch is a big player in this polarization (along with the ridiculous anti-democratic two-party system) and as long as that's the case I don't see things getting any better. I'll watch this later too though.
Yeah that's definitely true but this is pretty sober analysis for Kristol's fastidious audience of philosophically-informed neocons. I dislike the guy's hawkish positions a great deal but I also think he's really good in this smaller, more intimate venue where he's not bombarding the hoi polloi with noble lies for the sake of political expediency.
If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing - the first hour is largely focused on statistical analysis of the various voting blocs within the US - then skip up to just before the hour mark to get the "big picture" analysis. Definitely non-sensationalized imo.
I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable.
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will.
Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries.
Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:
Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right.
There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible.
Ah, the lust for killing each other. As if that would make your country better.
Look, you don't have a famine. You don't have over 30% unemployment. Your government hasn't collapsed literally, the police department and the army still work. You don't have any of the historical reasons for a civil war. Your situation isn't as bad as for example in Mexico, and they aren't on the verge of a civil war.
What you have is a political discourse that just loves the hyperbole. It's going to be a civil war. Not just political upheaval like in the late 60's early 70's, but a civil war. That's hyperbole. What you do have is an out of control political environment where any kind of consensus isn't needed as it is presumed that the winner can take it all and simply dismiss the opposition. You don't have to form coalition governments. Hence the political rhetoric has drifted into two separate worlds that don't meet anymore.
Perhaps the reason why Trump supporters don't get it is that they just think that anybody critisizing Trump HAS TO BE a supporter of the democrats, or liberal, or leftist. This is very typical and indeed a similar approach can be found in the democratic camp when there is a democratic president in office.
We have the right/left divide too where the other side obviously seems annoying from one's point of view, but nobody thinks that killing your fellow citizens would make the country better. Because that's what is comes to in a civil war.
Reply to Erik Also, it has been my observation that a lot of young people tend to feel that they deserve X, Y, Z in life, and the notion that they might not get it, seems inconceivable to them, and they cannot integrate it psychologically. I'm not sure why that is, but perhaps as living conditions have bettered, parents have tried to offer more and more to their children, which has resulted in a generation of people who expect the world, the state, the family etc. to give them.
The development of the whole concept of "rights", has also played into these expectations. "Rights" in popular parlance extend way beyond actual rights such as freedom of speech, etc. People often say "it's my right to {insert immoral activity here}. I'm free to do it".
Watch the video first please. As I mentioned to Baden, the venue is not intended for a massive audience and is therefore free from the sort of hyperbole you rightly discern in the general media. The guys are clearly hostile to Trump but also extremely fair to both sides at points in the discussion - about as close to nonpartisan analysis as you'll find these days.
Also, I find the analogy between today's America and the America of the 1850's to be worthy of consideration at the very least. I've done a lot of reading on that era recently and it's not something I feel we should dismiss so quickly. Fast forward to the hour mark if you don't have the time or the desire to listen to the whole thing.
The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. So this endemic sense of individualism that is at the core of American culture certainly shows its head across many different areas of social life. That is why, for example, individual liberty is perceived as a higher value than marriage and devotion to another person/family for example.
Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:
I don't think so. I've heard of Dugin before - as a Russian Heideggerian - and I'm pretty sure I would have made the connection when I saw the video originally.
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will.
Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority.
Agustino:The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty.
How about some evidence? This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all?
This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all?
And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.
In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?
If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.
Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.
Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority.
I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, @Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others.
First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"".
Agustino:Not worth the price.
What isn't?
increased labour participation of women
And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.
First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain?
Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not?
My take, in any case, is that the increased labour participation of women has led to their independence allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents.
Finally, I never suggested a single cause for later ages of marriage either. Increased labour participation and the related independence for women was one of several causes.
In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?
I'm sure there are all sorts of cultural differences across the world but since your graph pertained to the USA, let's ignore Eastern Europe for now.
If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.
No, I call an education better than no education allowing more people to develop skills to make better decisions. Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want!
And higher levels of people who live on benefits.
Irrelevant. The point about welfare is that it's safer to have kids at later ages as well.
Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.
This is empty of content. What negative consequences? What military application for the pill?
Don't see a correlation...
Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids.
Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later.
Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages.
I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others.
If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education.
In the good old days (prior to... say 1950, public schools performed the task of preparing millions of young people to take their place in society as productive cogs. A small minority of the masses were able to pursue enhanced roles which required higher education. After 1950, it became possible to begin shifting the task of educating people how to be good consumers, as well as productive cogs. As the economy changed, consuming became more important than producing, and now people are mostly taught how to consume, and for that there is 24/7 instruction available at all times, everywhere.
Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them.
First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone"".
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.
First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women.
That's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to women who laboured at home. I was referring to women labouring away from home.
The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain?
Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.
Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not?
Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).
allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents.
Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.
This is empty of content. What negative consequences?
The point is that as technology has developed, our moral capacity hasn't developed proportionally. So we're still the same brutes we were in the past, we now have better technology, and are thus capable of greater evil. That was a general point.
Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity.
Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids.
It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.
I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-up approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.
So it's an odd and perhaps unrealistic amalgam of libertarian and communitarian values. In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a bit more.
I know it sounds absurd, but so is this world as it is right now damn it - and in many ways mine seems more sane. I'm obviously biased, though.
First off, I didn't need evidence of later ages of marriages but evidence that it's because people "are opposed to "getting tied to someone""
There is a range of factors here, including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game, but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. We're also a generation that is financially worse off than our parent's generation, and wedding are expensive. I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years.
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.
Realize that in the Donald Trump thread, you shared a chart that showed "Age At Marriage in the USA". You don't live in the USA, so your anecdata here isn't very useful. It's also weird, to me at least, for a gy to be in a committed relationship, yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play.
If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education.
That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. They loathed the materialism, the mechanization, etc. of the bourgeoisie. There's something undignified about living a life devoted almost exclusively to making money and buying things.
I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which wold seek to change opinions rather than laws.
1. What is the relationship between public opinions and laws?
2. What influence does peer pressure (including the Media, etc.) have in determining worldview and outlook for your average individual?
I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact -
Me too - at least to a certain extent. At the very least you don't want the government dictating who you marry, when you can have children, if you can have children, when you can have sex etc.
I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.
I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to hedonism, but, given the condition of your average human being, I think the tendency is certainly towards hedonism. It requires external restrictions (ie, peer pressure) in order to curb it.
In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a living wage.
I agree with your vision, however, I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. People are problematic. The whip has always been needed throughout history to govern most men. It is true that there are some enlightened people out there, who will freely choose the good. But they are not the majority. What makes you think that the MAJORITY of men can be so educated that they will freely choose the good, instead of engage in self-destructive behaviour, much like the type of behaviour described by Dostoyevsky in the Underground Man?
yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play.
I agree. I think most of those guys are selfish, they are scared to commit to their girlfriend through marriage, and they also want to keep other possibilities open. I disagree with all those actions, and I have spoken to some friends and acquaintances too against it.
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already.
The celebration of culture, widespread access to culture and history, and the development of culture are at an all time high. Yes, it's less Bach and Swan Lake and more spoken word, movies and Banksy. There's no "right" culture in this respect and enjoy all of them. Families (and not just the marrying kind!) are safer with less rape, less abuse, less incest and when it does go wrong, more courts that recognise victims instead of protecting perpetrators. All thanks to liberals.
A counter-movement against the sexualisation of the female body has been going on for some time and is gaining traction (just compare mainstream hiphop videos now with 10-20 years ago), which I think is a healthy development.
So, really it's the reverse, social liberalism has emancipated the weak and has evolved institutions to hold the privileged accountable.
They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life.
Ah right, so people's salaries were halved and they have to work twice as hard now but they're still lazy fucks. Which one is it? Make a choice.
It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
That should suit you just fine then as it suggests nothing ever can change. Yet it does. Weird huh?
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.
Anecdotal evidence. Useless.
Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.
This claim is false. Salaries didn't half. They did stagnate and the increased profits as economies grew went to the already affluent (you know, the kind of economics that come automatically with most social conservative parties such as the GOP). Here's an opportunity to read up:
Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).
Prior to the industrial revolution women worked unpaid. They were farmers but their men or families pocketed the money. The main difference is that their salaries are now their own. So it gives women more choices and therefore also the possibility to decide to marry late. They're still welcome to marry early but they don't. I don't see what the problem is with that and you haven't made clear what's wrong with marrying late to begin with.
Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.
Not unfortunately. Thankfully. Their choices are first of all not forced on them by circumstance. Secondly, with age comes wisdom, so presumably they chose for better reasons. You apply motivations to it that are just your personal assumptions and not based on reality. Why can't women chose family life by planning to have children at a later age and to have less children? The two are not mutually exclusive you know.
Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity.
And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem?
I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around.
Not quite. Since women have more and different choices, having a zillion kids doesn't rate high among it any more. So there's a social change to have less kids, so you can start later.
It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.
Factually wrong. If you define "best" as meaning the best chance for the health of the infant, then the “best age” for first birth, based on USA national data, looked at a different measure of a baby’s health—rates of overall infant mortality rather than birth defects— is at 32. If you only look at birth defects, the age is 26.
including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game
Yes, I agree with this. Personally, I think such apps, and much of social media too should be heavily restricted. Not just with regards to dating and relationships, but with regards to quality of life and everything else, I think all the social media is having a very negative effect on society. That's why I've stopped using Facebook.
Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them.
You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, sure, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant social values and live a life of relative simplicity and sanity on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Or, more accurately and realistically, to consume less? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha...
And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem?
I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.
I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now.
Reply to Agustino The age of marriage fell from a high of 26.1/22.0 in 1890, to 22.7/20.3 in 1947. It remained low during the post war economic expansion. In the early 1970s the age of marriage was at 23.2/20.8 and has increased up to 29.2/27.1 in 2015. A close analysis would, I think, show that age of marriage tends to increases during economic downturns (such as there was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, during the Great Depression, and then during the long slow recession from 1970 to 2015) and decreases during periods of economic growth and vitality (like the post WWII boom).
This makes sense: It is easier to find work, marry, and establish a family during periods of expansion than during periods of contraction. Women joined the workforce in large numbers starting in the 1970s; this was less a product a women's liberation and more a product of contraction. In order to maintain the standard of living of the 50s and 60s, it became necessary for both adults in the family to work. During the last 48 years, it has become much more difficult for ordinary workers (70% of the population, at least) to maintain the quality of life. Declining wages, declining benefits, structural unemployment, inflation, and redistribution of income towards the richest 5%, has all played a role here.
If families abandoned the model of 1 breadwinner and 1 home maker, it wasn't because the model became old-hat. It just wasn't financially feasible any more.
Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas...
I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.
I agree with this. I appreciate the freedoms I have and allow others to exercise them as they see fit even though I don't agree with half of the shit going on. I don't like the sexualisation of women we have seen and continue to see but then I see movements in society that try to combat this. A silly but likable example: Project Body Hair
I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).
There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people.
I didn't say they were lazy nor that they have to work twice as hard individually.
I'll let you think on how those people who chose to be single with half a salary compared to what they used to have have to do, while at the same time insisting they're spoiled and have 1001 second chances and their entitlements.
It is the entitlement generation. Who ever decided corporate managers are entitled to those insane salaries? (I'm actually reading an interesting book on how it's economically reasonable to leave money on the table when your skin or soul is in the game: Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb
Although his ethical groundwork is a mess, he does make some interesting points and a seemingly conservative writer as well. (Yes, I don't shun what the "other" side has to say).
Ever heard of inflation? It's a simple question of supply v demand.
You quite clearly didn't read the research paper I included. It's also not a simple question of supply vs. demand as income leads to increase demand for the very goods those women help to produce. The stagnation of income is exploitation by the capitalist bourgeouisie as explained and predicted by Marx.
I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.
I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now.
Aha, so you want to limit other people's freedoms for selfish reasons. Talk about "individualism".
It's always surprising to me how unaware you are of these sort of contradictions in your thoughts. It's also prevalent when supporting Trump while insisting on honesty and character with a sort of "the end justifies the means" by destroying everything and then hoping people will come up with something "better" (where better is something you like).
Cue rationalisation why it isn't really contradictory.
Reply to Agustino Note that he (BitterCrank) doesn't establish the labour participation of women as the cause of declining wages but declining wages as the cause for labour participation of women as a necessity.
You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant values and live a life on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha...
Probably screwed, but let's not dwell on it.
Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values.
There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover.
Never mind starting a grassroots movement away from consumerism. Growing levels of poverty will drive people into simple living whether they jolly well like it or not. But a little theory can help the victims of pauperization cope with it better.
There is, though, good reason to block the flow of commercial, consumer messages into one's brain. Buying stuff generally doesn't serve the individual's interests all that well; it serves the interests of the seller. Life is much calmer without all the commercial noise and consumerist flailing. It is easier to make sense of life if one isn't chasing the spurious promises of advertisers or buying stuff one doesn't really need just because everybody else has it. (I'm not guiltless here; I periodically experience hunger pangs for more stuff.)
Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas...
A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.)
I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).
There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people.
Ooh I'll look into these things. I need to keep abreast of what's going on in the world; maybe we're already in the incipient stages of a significant paradigm shift.
A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.)
Well, the super-rich may find it in their interest to sacrifice a part of their wealth for the sake of maintaining a certain level of social stability. This would be preferable, I imagine, to keeping it all and running the risk of having it appropriated (expropriated?). Pragmatism.
I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries?
Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons.
Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values.
True. And most of us secretly envy the rich even when we bash them. I have many significant flaws, but I honestly have zero desire to be filthy rich. I should make it clear, however, that I'm not advocating poverty. It's something much more modest and reasonable than that.
I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met.
There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover.
Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)
And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our capitalist/consumerist context: the complete lack of social recognition one receives by living in such a way. So it's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - but these things are historically contingent and I don't see why our understanding of what a successful life entails will not be subject to change at some point in the future.
Anyhow, I think slight changes in values working incrementally over the next 50-100 years could ultimately result in a radical shift. It would be nice to think there'll come a day when people look back and think about how insane their ancestors were: in the way they related to others, to their world, and to themselves. IMO, an ontological shift is what's needed more than a political and/or economic one. They're related, of course, but that's the way I see it.
I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.
I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met.
In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively.
Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)
And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our context: the complete lack of social recognition. It's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - these things are historically contingent.
Actually, I share a lot of this as well and I'm not alone. I'm working on a technical implementation of an idea I have that will save the European pension industry about 3 billion EUR a year. The solution, if it does what I and my partners say it does, is "pure gold" as some market participants have described it.
Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3).
The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy.
Those are obvious problems. I think a form of social conservatism - of the type I've outlined (poorly perhaps) in broad strokes - combined with economic progressivism holds some potential. But then there would have to be an infringement on the economic freedom of some individuals, unless there's some sort of divine intervention precipitating a shift in human beings from where we're at now (joking here).
In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively.
Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3).
Please keep us posted. Sounds like you guys are way ahead of the curve.
I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.
The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.
There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.
Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.
I would agree there is a split such as you describe (as long as we are discussing a general, big picture meta-view).
However... I feel that it is dwarfed by another much more primal division. Let us imagine two neighbors in an average, economically struggling city. Let’s say that Jane is a far left-leaning lesbian. Her neighbor John is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who appreciates the wit and wisdom of Fox news. Jane rolls her eyes at John’s four huge American flags displayed prominently as well as his enormous pick-up truck with the fierce patriotic bald eagle motif. John sneers at Jane’s rainbow flag and hippie decorations. And they both resent the other’s many election signs on their lawn.
Two totally different people, right? Or are they merely mirror images of each other? Aren’t they really more alike than different? Isn’t this a matter of tradition, preference, taste, emotions, etc. Important and serious, but not totally unresolvable.
Now contrast John and Jane with just about any political “mover and shaker” member (Liberal, Right-winger, or whatever) of the so-called economic 1%. The cream of the crop, the billionaires calling the tune that the rest of us have to dance to. Compared to the ruling billionaires, John and Jane look like siblings who just prefer different TV shows.
This is the division which divides us.
This schism is fostered by the mega-wealthy to keep the “common people” from uniting against them, and surrounding the castle with a pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd. Nevertheless, I am certain that any attempt at some kind of French Revolution 2.0 would be disastrous. Subtlety, calmness, and stealth are needed. Think WWII French Resistance rather than guillotines and Marie Antoinette. Violence as a political game-changing plan has been shown to be counterproductive, and is a certain magnet for a gov’t crackdown.
But the basic dynamics and outlines of the drama are getting more similar each day. The pressure increases each day, as does the temptation to blame our neighbor. Whatever the prescription is, I do not know. In any case, this appears to be the only slightly exaggerated meta-view and diagnosis from this corner.
But ultimately... or as ultimately as one can imagine... there is no “us and them”. There is only us, creating and re-creating our world in each moment. The planet Earth is a given, a solid reality of matter and energy. The human world is our creation, and always has been.
When you become a rich elite and book your spot in Trump tower, I will come gunning for you with my socialist ressentiment... and several requests for material goods I covet. :up:
It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American.
Yeah I was thinking something like, "psst, Benkei, hey, uh, I know I just talked a good game about not caring about money and material things and all that, but, uh, can I get a job with your company?"
I would say generational differences play into this a lot, too. For example, age of an "average" Facebook user is 25 - 34. It was created only with intent, not with knowledge. Therefore, no one could predict that it would go out of proportion and then it so happens that children are growing up in an environment where this twisted form of communication exists and is taken as the norm. 30+ year old people see it often as cool and use it to "share" their views and experiences with the world without realising what kind of impact it has on the youth. I'm in my early twenties and it makes me sick to see, in this case Facebook users, being so ignorant. It goes as far, for me, as to say that it is simply unwise to listen to any advice from people who are above certain age. This is not because they are older (after all, a great amount of wisdom comes from authors of previous eras of our history), but because they comment on what young people should do while they themselves support social media and other non-sense that harms the youth. Just look at the number of discussion and articles on what millennials should do, ironically from people who are not millennials. For once, non-millenials should focus on what they themselves should do and how they should act, and so should the millenials of course. The previous generation, at least where I live, have been a disaster for our generation.
I find it highly unethical to create an unpredictable world for the next generation. That way, the previous generation completely avoids responsibility because they didn't live their young years the way the next generation does. There is no Skin in the Game, in Taleb's words. Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part. If human had done this from the beginning, it wouldn't have gotten to the current point, and so, this idea would not work if applied now.
Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part.
Just to clarify, how are your views different from Jordan Peterson fueled incel nonsense?
Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons.
I see. The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me.
I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years.
I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000. Now you may spend $4,000 here, but you'll certainly pocket the difference. Now, to give you an idea, average take-home wage is around $600-800 here. Taking $800 as the upper limit, that means that from a wedding you can potentially make in revenue more than you'd make in an entire year of work.
Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening.
I come from an ex-communist country. So during communism, things were REALLY social conservative. You wouldn't see people kiss on the street or in the park for example. Cheating on your partner was almost unheard of, since the consequences, from the families involved and also at the workplace were severe (it did happen, but it was mostly with the powerful, well-connected, etc.). Dating someone who was seen as socially inferior to you was unacceptable (you could lose your job). Parents played a big role in who you could date and who you couldn't. Talking about sex was extremely rare, it was a taboo subject. Showing off based on sexual conquests and the like was fringe behaviour. Etc.
Now I'm totally opposed to such a controlling form of social conservatism. But I'm saying that I know first-hand that tough laws and a strong culture can certainly prevent lots of bad behaviour. The danger here though is hypocrisy.
After the fall of communism, and with the advent of democracy, sexual immorality has GREATLY increased. Lots more divorces, a lot more cheating, more promiscuity, etc. So with the influx of Americanism, and American culture, we have also seen a dissolution of moral values. And Eastern Europeans quite often try to mimick American culture - probably the influx coming from Hollywood movies.
The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy.
I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy?
The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me.
This is a terrible terrible strategy for the majority of people. US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. It's also fair to assume that those who do start businesses tend to not have debt (e.g. student loans), or have a certain socio-economic network that can help support them through investment and guidance. Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. If your goal is to save for a wedding than the stable choice for the vast majority of people, for better or worse, is a wage job.
I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000
Well I have no idea what currency you are using, but in USD the average wedding costs between $25K - $40K, and typically includes about 100 - 200 guests. Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple), but often times a registry is set up where guests can purchase certain household items and appliances for the couple (which can be as low as $30). All-in-all no one is making money from a wedding in America.
Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening.
Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. You can either educate your kids about sex, and protection, etc. or impart your delusion by telling them your false, unsubstantiated, quasi-religious views on the matter, but you're not going to stop people from engaging in it. I have no clue how having a few sex partners in your past contributes to divorce, and I've already shown you that 1) the average number of sex partners has decreased from the Boomers to Millennials, and 2) monogamy is, overwhelmingly accepted over polygamy. I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex.
I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy?
If social conservatism includes getting married young and having children young, which you suggest, then those added expenses are antithetical while living in an uncertain economy or one with stagnate wage growth, and other increased expenses.
That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take.
Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance).
Reply to MawReply to Benkei Don't forget that the now dead liberal wing of the Republican party was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Nelson Rockefeller was their last presidential candidate -- even Richard Nixon had some socially liberal policies -- his drug control policy was treatment based, rather than prison based.
We need an bad-tempered economic ACT UP organization for the masses. The boat definitely will need to be rocked to shake loose all that cash stored up by the oligarchs.
Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.
Which of these two is actually your view? The second seems appropriately modest, would you presume to know that the first is absolutely the case?
It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American.
Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?
From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.
I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.
Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.
Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.
Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"
I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned.
Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely.
Haha yeah, even better! But seriously though, Benkei's company sounds like it would be a great one to work for on a number of levels: a sense of responsibility to the interests of the larger community, not solely concerned with the bottom line, a collaborative rather than dictatorial approach, etc. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come. Working in a situation like that, with inspiring people and goals, sounds like it would be pretty exciting. I'd gladly take less money to work there over more conventional companies. And this captures what I'm getting at: seeking out work that's rewarding in ways far beyond the immediate financial payoff.
I do need to start researching companies like his in order to lay out a (more) detailed approach to a different way of thinking about work and economics more generally - one that aims to incorporate economic activity within an emerging new context. It would involve shifting the common perception of business activity - its primary aims and methods - to reflect a (possible) new set of social values.
Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance).
I'm referring more to those who lived in the era of the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the Terror (or shortly afterwards), and who anticipated both the tremendous possibilities and the many dangers of a world shaped by the bourgeoisie. Think Burke or Hegel or the Romantic poets instead of, say, Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand or Mitt Romney. Much different sort of "conservatism" imo; in many ways even more "progressive" in outlook than our current progressives.
Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mainly, but also influential among some conservative philosophers up to the middle of the twentieth. More cultural than strictly economic in nature. Respect for the arts, for the natural world, for the community, for "classic" notions of education, etc. To my knowledge, it's never been a unified and coherent movement that's translated into a relevant political party. Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions, but that's a contentious issue and I don't think there's a necessary connection. Highly critical of certain aspects of modernity, though, such as the emphasis on autonomous individuality, on environmental degradation, on the reduction of human beings to exploitable resources, etc. but without necessarily longing for the world which preceded it. In that it's somewhat amorphous and ambiguous.
Incidentally, some of the thinkers I have in mind have been far more influential among the Left than the Right - at least since the mid-twentieth century - as the latter has become more and more fixated on financial freedom, deregulation, limited government, etc.
That's my quick take. Have you read Tocqueville's Democracy in America? I think that nineteenth century work moves within that culturally "conservative" sphere I'm talking about.
Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions
That's possible. I posted some thoughts on fascism a bit ago. Fascism is a tricky subject because it doesn't seem to have essential content. It is more a method of operating, and not a particularly pleasant one, and less a doctrine. Communists aren't pleasant either, but they definitely had/have specific doctrines. Hitler had his obsessions, but those weren't necessarily those of the larger fascist movement. Ditto for Mussolini, the French and Hungarian fascists, et al.
For instance, the role of corporations wasn't entirely resolved in National Socialism. Some of the earlier Nazis wanted to nationalize the large conglomerates. Others were more oriented toward capitalism. Who were the truer fascists? The ones that came out on top.
We Anglo Americans deplored and denounced Germany's attempted seizure of Poland, the Baltic states, Byelorussia, and Ukraine. Those fascist bastards! But what was unique about it, other than that their occupied colonials happened to be white people instead of brown people? Belgian treated its Congo colony horribly. The British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial operations were never described as "benevolent, charitable, or humanitarian operations". They were business propositions for the benefit of the Colonial powers and were carried out ruthlessly. We expanded across North America at severe expense to the natives -- like severe unto death.
I'm not excusing the fascists of course -- I'm just demonstrating that it can be difficult to nail down specific features that characterize them, and nobody else.
US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet.
A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business. There are serial entrepreneurs out there, people who start business after business, and they build several successful companies. So it's a skill, just like anything else, a skill that can be learned. The first time you ride a bicycle you will fall and get hurt, but soon you will learn. It's the same thing here.
Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability.
It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business.
Very expensive. A lot more expensive than here. Here a good wedding is around $4-5K. Luxurious one can be in the $25K-40K, but then so would the gifts (presumably, if you will organise such a wedding, the guests will also have $$) ;)
I don't think this is right. As I said, here during communism sex for teenagers was quite rare. Sure, some sex will be happening, but more important than that is the culture that surrounds it.
I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex.
I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.
With regards to the communist countries and this:
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/04-08-2009/108593-marxism-0/
Reply to Erik Have you considered changing banks? You can utilise the DJSI and other sustainability indices to inform you and then to change banks and spend your money with different companies.
See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold
So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US.
Reply to Bitter Crank
I think Sinclair Lewis was right. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I don't say fascism will come here, but "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" seems to me to be as good a description as any of those prominent politicians and pundits who claim to be conservatives these sad, sorry days, and it appears all that one must do to obtain the acclaim of those who pass for conservatives now is to waive the flag, and brandish the cross.
I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.
But pop culture and Hollywood are only several threads in a skein of influences. Peers, family, church, school, work, "public opinion", the press, etc. all add numerous additional threads to the skein of influence on individual behavior.
"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience,
The secret about advertising with sex is this: Sex is bait only as long as sex isn't too available. The tension between "X is a sexy product; buy it and you'll be sexy too" plays against the backdrop of social restriction on sex. (Yes, you think there are no restrictions on sexual behavior in American -- but it is not so.)
Selling cars with fried chicken and french fries wouldn't work very well in the US because there is so much fried chicken available. Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity.
The sub-set of the typical American who actually try to have carefree unlimited sex is a very frustrated group.
A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business
Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? I am not suggesting that no one should start a business, but that it's an extremely risky venture, not to mention exhausting and time-consuming. If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary.
I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised.
It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business.
The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt.
I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.
This is simply circular, because you're already defining sexual promiscuity as inherently immoral without reasonable justification. Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views
Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about?
Well, when you finish University, you pretty much know nothing about anything when it comes to money-making. Might as well learn how to earn for yourself.
If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary.
That depends, you can run your business such as it's basically a one-man operation. It works in the service industry at least. That's what I did for a long time actually. Personally, I was still making a lot better than I would have otherwise. And the interesting thing is that I know that I can always make money, I don't need anything or anyone else. Even if my business fails as I try to grow it, that's not an issue for me anymore, I will always be able to go back to earning as an individual contractor. And what's more, I also know that I can learn pretty much any useful activity and make money out of it, because that's what I've done. I need no university degree, no certification, no nothing. There is, in a funny way, no better security than this.
I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised.
Starting a business is risky, but remaining a salaried employee for a very long time is also risky (I would even say MORE risky). The risk may not feel the same, since, as a salaried employee, the risk is spread over a much longer period of time, whereas the risk of a business is concentrated in a shorter time frame.
Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views
I would disagree, it damages your capacity to bond with your partner and the degree of intimacy you can achieve. Now there are gradations. Having multiple long-term partners due to failed relationships and some such is bad, but not as bad as promiscuity for example.
Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity.
Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity and the like? Afterall, merely having sex doesn't mean that the sex will be satisfying. Sexual satisfaction is difficult to achieve precisely because of the overabundance of sex, and its mismanagement.
"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience,
Are you sure that 99% of the population can tell the difference? I would think it's the other way around, only 1% of the population can tell the difference.
The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circus. It is precisely because the plebs, which are the majority, cannot see beyond the circus, that they get so distracted by it, and thus caught up in it.
If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there?
If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there?
If AJ walked up to me in the street and asked me for sex (again, she really needs to stop doing that), I'd be like "Angelina baby, you gots to stop listening to Agustino. He's been sniffing powdered holy books and really needs to get out and meet some real live humans that don't just exist in his fevered sex-addled imagination fuelled by watching too many Russian porno vids starring Donald Trump, urine, and assorted women of ill-repute". And then I would bless myself and walk away knowing I had made the world a better place.
Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. That is objectively fucking terrible advice to give. You constantly spew these puritanical notions revolving around sex and women without any justification, while constantly ignoring my evidenced counterarguments. In conversation after conversation, for years, you've treated the evidence I provide to you as inferior as your own anecdotal experience. In one instance, you stated "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul", which is something you do far more often than you would ever admit. I think that statement sums up who you are. This is a philosophy forum, but you rarely ever do philosophy. You just spew nonsense, and I'm frankly tried of it.
Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing.
No, I said you should investigate why only 30% of businesses survive more than 10 years. You have done no such thing, and by your own admission, you are ignorant of it. And yes, my business may close in 7 years say. But in those 7 years I may have earned hundreds of thousands that I took out of it. In your books, that counts as a failure (survived less than 10 years), but not in mine. There are quite a few such situations actually.
Dude, the point is you are burdened with a caricature of the being called "American woman". There are American women on this very forum. Why don't you ask them how willing they would be to drop their knickers for a handsome celebrity on first meeting? Then after you get the shit verbally slapped out of you recognize they are people with mostly some moral integrity and not walking pussies waiting to be fucked by Brad Pitt. Please...
Reply to Baden I don't see why you've made it just about American women, the point is equally about American men, probably moreso than American women actually. I have no doubt that if you ran the experiment, at least on men, you'd get at minimum 8-9 saying yes.
No doubt that there are people with moral integrity too who would refuse. I'm not questioning that. But you have to understand that your average US citizen isn't the well-read and intellectual Baden who has thought through his moral views extensively.
And if you ran the experiment on women? What's your answer. I'm all ears...
I'm not sure, if I had to guess, I'd say 5-7, but it depends how well it's pitched. If it's in the middle of the street, there will be more no's, if it's in private, there will be more yes's.
See, that's insane to me, but it does help us to contextualize your world view. I'll say this, I know at least ten western women well (and I have no evidence to suggest American women, whom I've met many of, are significantly different in the realm of sexual mores) and I'm sure none of them would accept a random offer of sex on the street from anyone, but would find it creepy and disgusting. So my answer would be roughly zero. The question then arises as to who the hell you have been hanging out with of the fairer sex? Do you spend your days in houses of ill-repute, go-go bars or randomly creeping around docklands areas in the wee hours? Are these the only women you know?
Or tell us how many American or western women do you know well? What's their background and what leads you to believe they could be so easily convinced into having sex with a celebrity on first meeting?
How many American or western women do you know well?
Depends on what you understand by know well. It could be anywhere from 5-50 if you include acquaintances or friends of other friends. Mostly from my stay in the UK. I've gone to clubs there, for example for a friend's birthday, and I've seen what some of them can be up to (thankfully not on myself, though one did try).
What's their background and what leads you to believe they could be so easily convinced into having sex with a celebrity on first meeting?
Because from what I've observed, some of them are easily convinced to have sex with a random guy! Now if that random guy was also a celebrity, why would they suddenly back off?
So, largely drunk young women in nightclubs being chatted up by men and then on your presumption being taken away for sex equate to a random sample of women from the general population being stopped in the street? Let's try again, of those women you know well who did not join your friend's birthday party to cavort around while you bravely fought against the imposition of sexual immorality on your person, have you seen more than fifty percent of them get spirited away for sex with random strangers on a first meeting, or do you just presume that would be the case? And if so based on what?
I've been out with groups of men and women to bars and clubs and people just socialize and drink and no one goes home with anyone. Therefore no one ever fucks. Wow am I doing philosophy?
Moving on to men, Agu, what makes you think the number would be higher in the US than elsewhere? The US is one of the most religious and socially conservative of the advanced democracies. If you're right, increased levels of religion and social conservatism would seem to turn men into relatively rabid sex maniacs. I just don't know what you're trying to argue.
Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity
You have this bizarre bourgeois/religious notion that sex is valuable only if it is experienced as seldom as possible. It's a delusion that your lobbyists have promulgated far and wide.
The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circuses
The Plebs had a phrase, "You had better give us bread and circuses if you want to keep your heads, because maintaining your idle privileges would otherwise be an intolerable inconvenience, and we would do away with the lot of you!"
Actually Brad Pitt did walk up and offer me a BJ. I took him up on the offer, of course -- I have nothing against promiscuous sex. We went into a convenient back alley. It was OK, but I thought he lacked a certain commitment to the role. Anyway, he doesn't seem to be all that bright. Here's a picture I took of him trying to figure out how many fingers he has. He kept losing count.
Have you considered changing banks? You can utilise the DJSI and other sustainability indices to inform you and then to change banks and spend your money with different companies.
See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold
So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US.
Thanks for the heads up, Benkei. I'll look into these programs and get back to you (if you don't mind) if I have any questions.
My provisional take on the issue of sex, at least as it relates to the form of social conservatism I have in mind, would include: the belief that sex is good!; the belief that government shouldn't get involved in trying to regulate sexual behavior; the belief that sex within a committed relationship with someone you genuinely care about is preferable to casual sex with many partners; a dislike of things which reduce women (or men) to objects of sexual desire; a preference for a "natural" look and a related hope that someday we'll spend way less money on cosmetics and plastic surgery; an appreciation for modesty in dress and behavior; a belief that the best relationships - and the best sex - transcend mere physical attraction; etc. Pretty standard, relatively conservative but far from puritanical stuff.
So those are my views based on my own experience and I would not attempt to impose them on anyone else. I think they're fairly moderate and reasonable positions that (yet again) may even align in a couple areas with "progressive" positions. I'm not nearly as obsessed with the issue as Agu is, obviously, but also not entirely dismissive of his criticisms of lax sexual morality and the possible negative effects this may have on individuals and the community more generally. I went through a stage in my life (early twenties) where, like a lot of my friends, my primary goal was to get laid as much as possible. Not too difficult around these parts, especially for someone working in the bar business as I was.
I agree with @Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others. I'm only adding my opinion since I don't think Agu's somewhat extreme position should be taken as the only "socially conservative" option out there, even if it is shared by many others who identify as such. I do respect his self-control on the issue though - he's a much better man than me in that regard.
No problem. There's a lot going on in this space as some governments are demanding it. It's then easier and cheaper just to meet the strictest rules instead of adjusting to every local set of rules. So they divest from cluster munition, child labour and such. Clients are demanding green and sustainable as well. It's not perfect but a start.
As to your take on sex; apparently I'm a social conservative then.
I found the article on adultery I linked interesting. There's something weird about people banging on about family values, abortion and promiscuity and then going about undermining them at a personal level. I get people are fallible, I hardly live up to the man I want to be (I procrastinate like a sloth), but then I don't go about demanding that people live a certain way.
Yeah there's really not much that I've found that I disagree with you (or Baden, or Michael, etc.) on. I have an aversion for (and a suspicion of) people who moralize too much. Strange how they often seem to be the worst offenders of the very vices they rail against in others.
Why do you take my position to be extreme? At the very least it is the position that is almost unanimously shared by the 5 main world religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Mainly that all sex outside of marriage (or a committed relationship, which in my view one should only start with the purpose of getting married, and anyway, marriage is a spiritual event, and doesn't require a church ceremony) is immoral.
That's true, but I do think it's a bit extreme in a relative sense. Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. But perhaps things are different in other parts of the world. Anyhow, I respect your own personal stance on sexual purity a great deal, but I don't think it would resonate with people who weren't raised within a strict religious tradition. What's the old saying about not making the perfect the enemy of the good? I'm trying to be pragmatic.
Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today.
But that's not my position. My position is no sex outside of marriage. And by marriage I don't mean what happens after a religious or public ceremony which officiates the relationship between two people. By marriage, I mean a committed relationship, in which the two people intend to live together until the end of their days. That can occur way before any actual marriage ceremony.
So pretty much if people have sex in committed relationships, I don't see that as a problem.
Hmm, then it seems as though you're using the term "marriage" in a highly idiosyncratic sense, one which is far removed from common usage. This is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone equate "marriage" with "committed relationship." I have heard of "common law" marriages, though, so maybe there's some legal precedent.
I made the logical assumption that "no sex outside of marriage" meant no sex until you're actually married, which I took to mean remaining a virgin up until the marriage is formally recognized by the wider community. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. It still seems bizarre to me that anyone would refer to himself or herself as being married - ostensibly in a "spiritual" sense - when they aren't legally married.
This unique understanding of marriage does however make your position seem less extreme. I'll give you that. A quick and perhaps dumb question: say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" for good - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? Seems like marriage only makes sense within a context which includes things like public and formal commitment, separation, divorce, etc.
say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced?
Hmmm, you're still misunderstanding my view a bit I think.
Yes, I do use marriage in an uncommon way. But that's because I want to be critical of an institution that is many times hypocritical - as if a communal ceremony is ever necessary for there to be a lifelong bond between two individuals. Just like in the days of Jesus, the Pharisees followed just the letter of the law, not its spirit. We have started to do the same today. External marriage, which is the societal one, is merely a reflection of what happens between the two people and God. It is something that officiates what has happened between the two people and God and makes it public to the world.
But this societal marriage is merely a reflection. What matters is what is behind the reflection, the source so to speak. In some cases, there may be nothing, in which case the marriage is fake, and a hypocrisy - a sham. And in some other cases, if there is something, but there is no marriage (no social reflection) that in no way condemns the two people involved.
Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense. In this case, foreign intelligence is accused of meddling and there's a suspicion of collusion also under investigation. Indicting and following the rule of law through investigating possible crimes has nothing to do with McCarthyism.
I hope you're getting paid for making all this shit up otherwise your lack of knowledge is comical.
Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense
The comparable difference between the two examples is that the current day "McCarthyists" are not of the elected administration.
uhuh, so we're not talking about legal marriage here and that's not a graph about legal marriage.
Yes, obviously I cannot get a graph about the kind of marriage I'm talking about since it is an internal, subjective matter as Kierkegaard would say, not something objective that can be quantified. I use the objective as an approximation though - remember that, in my view, the external reflects the internal, exactly as I said above.
Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better. I take it that two people, while not legally married, can still be married in a much deeper and more authentic (spiritual) sense. On the other hand, two people who are legally married may still not be genuinely married in the sense you have in mind.
Is that the gist of it? Something still seems awry with it but I can't pinpoint exactly what it is. I think it may have something to do with continuing to use the term "marriage" instead of eschewing it altogether, maybe for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something along those lines. I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term, though, and assume it has something to do with that.
Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better. I take it that two people, while not legally married, can still be married in a much deeper and more authentic (spiritual) sense. On the other hand, two people who are legally married may still not be genuinely married in the sense you have in mind.
term marriage instead of eschewing it altogether for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something like that? I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term and assume it has something to do with that.
Well, according to the Bible (and unlike in Buddhism for example), marriage is a divine command first and foremost, it's not (just) a social matter. God ordered man and woman to become one flesh. So in light of this, it seems hypocritical to give precedence to marriage merely as a social matter, when clearly the Christian religion emphasises the spiritual aspect, that is between the two people and God.
Reply to Erik To add to what I said previously, this is a big difference between Christianity, and Buddhism, as I was discussing in the other thread. In Christianity marriage is of central importance for the spiritual development of lay people, it is a holy union that is approved of by God, and that reflects, at a distance, the possibility of union between God and his Church, which is realised through the person of Jesus Christ. In Buddhism, on the other hand, marriage is often seen as a social convention, that is actually an impediment on the path to salvation.
That is also why I ascribe such danger and gravity to sexual immorality.
Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages.
— Benkei
Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :)
You do realise this was an excellent opportunity to clarify your idea but you didn't say "I consider that the same as marriage"? I suppose I shouldn't complain about you starting to make some sense but to claim there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're saying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position.
You do realise this was an excellent opportunity to clarify your idea but you didn't say "I consider that the same as marriage"? I suppose I shouldn't complain about you staying to make some sense but to complain there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're staying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position.
You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. But, as I said, under my view, the internal determines the external, which is its reflection. Now tell me Benk, if the external ultimately will reflect the internal, doesn't that mean that there is a relationship or a correlation if you will between external, legal marriage, and the spiritual marriage I'm talking about? Doesn't that mean that you can infer something about the latter by looking at the former? It clearly does, if you want to say it doesn't, then you have to deny the relationship between the two.
In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? The implication of your position would appear to suggest that they're not really married, which, if I'm being perfectly honest, seems a little rude, Agu!
In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married?
It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.
Please also note that an "atheist" may actually be a believer in their heart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian
Being a believer has nothing to do with saying and repeating a couple of words and attending church. It's again, an internal, subjective matter, that may be cashed out in a multitude of symbols, some overtly religious, others less so.
You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them.
Then you should say so instead of obfuscating your position especially if I highlight an issue that we would agree on. There's s lot we can philosophise about without having data. Your position was that promiscuity caused people to get married later. It's not understandable why you say this, with your level of English, instead of, for instance, promiscuity causes people to get into meaningful relationships at a later age.
I think promiscuity is a personal choice and choices only exist because of opportunity. I think depriving people from opportunities would be terrible and it's much more worthwhile people chose a meaningful relationship from all opportunities than have the choice enforced due to circumstances.
Okay, I won't deny there are parts of this position of yours that I find appealing. I never particularly cared for the ring aspect of marriage, for instance, and see its as an (oftentimes) ostentatious and superfluous addition to the "inner" commitment you're referring to. But why not just go forward with the public, legal, and conventional components of marriage if the relationship is already sealed in a more lasting way?
But why not just go forward with the public, legal and conventional components of marriage if it's already sealed in a more lasting way?
What do you mean why not go forward with it? Personally, I do think that, in most cases, legal marriage ought to be one of the "fruits" of the authentic, spiritual relationship between two people and God that I was talking about before. But I admit that there are cases where this may not happen or may be delayed. There could be financial reasons, other social reasons, who knows each individual case...
What do you mean why not go forward with it? Personally, I do think that, in most cases, legal marriage ought to be one of the "fruits" of the authentic, spiritual relationship between two people and God that I was talking about before. But I admit that there are cases where this may not happen or may be delayed. There could be financial reasons, other social reasons, who knows each individual case...
Then let me ask a different question: Why would you go through with a formal marriage given the distinctions you've made between the inauthentic and authentic, the private and public, the bodily and spiritual, the outer and inner, etc.? It would seem completely unnecessary to do so unless you're interested in, say, the practical (legal) advantages of being married.
It's not understandable why you say this, with your level of English, instead of, for instance, promiscuity causes people to get into meaningful relationships at a later age.
Okay, you are right, I should have put it this way, it is clearer.
I think promiscuity is a personal choice and choices only exist because of opportunity. I think depriving people from opportunities would be terrible and it's much more worthwhile people chose a meaningful relationship from all opportunities than have the choice enforced due to circumstances.
On a fundamental level I agree with you, since morality cannot be enforced. If you do the right thing because you are forced to, then there is no merit in doing it. It must be freely chosen.
At the same time, I see that promiscuity has social costs in drawing others to this kind of behaviour and influencing our culture. The fact that it harms others (instead of merely oneself) suggests to me that we must do something to minimise it, just like we do something to minimise theft (or prevent others from being affected by it) for example (which also harms others). Take the clear case of adultery - adultery clearly harms other people, in quite significant ways, in ways that are more significant, in fact, than if you were to steal their car for example. So why is it that we use FORCE to stop theft, but we don't use force to stop adultery, given that the consequences of the latter are more serious on the individuals involved than the consequences of theft?
Then let me ask a different question: Why you would go through with a formal marriage given the distinctions you've made between the authentic and inauthentic, the bodily and the spiritual, the outer and the inner, etc.? It would seem completely unnecessary to do so unless you're interested in, say, the practical (legal) advantages of being married.
Legal marriage is a way to share the "fruits" of your spiritual marriage with society. It is a cause of bringing the community together to celebrate what has happened between the two people and God. So it is only natural, once again, for the inner to reflect itself in the outer.
It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.
Please also note that an "atheist" may actually be a believer in their heart.
I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical (or whatever superlative you like) people cannot be atheists? Even if they identify as such? I can imagine two great human beings who cannot find it in their hearts to believe in God and yet are 100% committed to each other "for better or worse." I'm just trying to draw out the curious implications of your stance.
Legal marriage is a way to share the "fruits" of your spiritual marriage with society. It is a cause of bringing the community together to celebrate what has happened between the two people and God. So it is only natural, once again, for the inner to reflect itself in the outer.
I'm not trying to be tedious here, but within a spiritual relationship is there a moment when the marriage is recognized by both partners? Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it a sudden or gradual process? Depends on the specifics of each case? Can one be "married" to more than one person? Etc.
They may identify as atheists, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily are so in their hearts. For me, religion is fundamentally a matter of the heart.
I can imagine two great human beings who cannot find it in their hearts to believe in God and yet are 100% committed to each other "for better or worse."
It depends what you mean by "believe in God in their hearts". The way I see it, if you don't believe in God in your heart, then you cannot love other human beings fully either.
Reply to Erik To illustrate - God is the source of goodness, in fact God is Love itself. How can you love your beloved, if you don't also love God, and hence believe in Him? It makes no sense if we look at the meaning of those words...
What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering?
I like the direction you're going with this in some ways, but it seems to lead to another counter-intuitive conclusion (similar to your sense of marriage): that there may be plenty of self-professed atheists who are actually theists, and many self-professed theists who are actually atheists. Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc.
So where genuine love is found so too will God be found? No need for anything else? No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are necessary, etc.?
But with that I'm completely out of my element and will vacate the field. Feel free to expand on your notion of God but I haven't much more to add.
Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc.
Yes, definitely agree. I wanted to mention this example too.
What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering?
I have no qualms with that, it sounds very much like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.
No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are are necessary, etc.?
Beliefs are not necessary, but faith is. I believe the Law passed on by Moses, and previously the Noahide laws, are codifications of this Love as it pertains to ethical behaviour.
I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time!
Just a method to avoid admitting he's wrong. He does it regularly. It's totally inconsistent with the discussions at the start of this thread.
I'll have to backtrack and check out his earlier contributions. I think I found a couple potentially serious flaws in his position as I just read through and processed the last couple pages again, but I think I'll back off for the moment. :razz:
On a fundamental level I agree with you, since morality cannot be enforced. If you do the right thing because you are forced to, then there is no merit in doing it. It must be freely chosen.
At the same time, I see that promiscuity has social costs in drawing others to this kind of behaviour and influencing our culture. The fact that it harms others (instead of merely oneself) suggests to me that we must do something to minimise it, just like we do something to minimise theft (or prevent others from being affected by it) for example (which also harms others). Take the clear case of adultery - adultery clearly harms other people, in quite significant ways, in ways that are more significant, in fact, than if you were to steal their car for example. So why is it that we use FORCE to stop theft, but we don't use force to stop adultery, given that the consequences of the latter are more serious on the individuals involved than the consequences of theft?
First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. It's precisely because I'm aware of the cultural basis of my view that I'd refuse to legislate on this. Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. This is simply dependent on time and place.
Second, it's not a given short term relationships aren't meaningful to begin with. This is not mutually exclusive.
You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances.
So when one spouse cheats on the other at the most that's a contractual breach and not a criminal issue.The aggrieved party can chose to forgive or to divorce. It's my understanding that in some States in the USA it is relevant who caused a divorce and that damages can be awarded. I suspect this leads to very messy and harmful divorces for everyone involved because the more dirt you throw at your ex the better off you'll be financially. And this is the main problem right there ; whose fault is it? The wife that cheated? The emotionally absent husband? The external pressures of jobs, rebelling kids, family death, illnesses etc.? Explicit and implicit expectations could be reason to divorce but were they obligations to begin with? The obligations of a marriage are not defined or set in stone and subject to continual negotiation and cooperation as the needs of those involved continually change. It is difficult to navigate the muddy waters of a marriage and love alone isn't enough.
Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. It's not the end of the world or you can choose not to get involved in the first place. Nobody is forcing anyone to be in any relationship.
First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here.
No, I'm not using them interchangeably, I just want to discuss the most serious one out of them, because it's easier to see the wrongness there, where it is magnified. Like Plato discussed a city, instead of a person, in order to investigate morality.
I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice.
If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all.
You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief.
Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society.
A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances.
Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.
Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship.
No - not if you're referring to breakups that occur due to adultery. That's like telling me the consequences of your business partner driving your business into the ground to earn a profit himself are well within expectations for any adult starting a business with someone else. This is utterly insane. If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place.
Again, the damages of adultery are irreparable. No amount of monetary compensation can ever repair the damage that was done. So it's not like your average business contract where you can quantify some damages and pay them. These are unpayable.
If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all.
I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. You shouldn't project your view of universality on me. You can disagree of course but that's neither here nor there in my moral system. More importantly though, and you don't address it, is that any set of morals are time and place dependent and therefore fluid.
Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society.
Unsophisticated Rousseaun contract theory. First off, insert all arguments against Rousseau. I'm a fan of Rawls though but his contract theory is time and place dependent, non-universal and reflective.
Second, the social contract, whatever it is, is not legally enforced either - only laws are.
You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.
This is a silly argument. Hands were cut off for thievery as well. Times change, morals change. You're being really selective with which culture and which time you select. Your bare assertion how terrible the consequences of adultery are, is not borne out by reality. YOU think it's very important and therefore assume considerable damages. The rest of the civilised world shrugs it off. Take France for instance since forever. Or English rakes etc. during a time the death penalty for adultery existed. All this contrary to local religious mores no less.
Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat.
Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian.
If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place.
Why do you think people invented pre-nups? You seem to replace your personal notion of what marriage should be with what's going on in the real world. I'm married and my wife and I regularly state "assuming we're still together then, it would be great...". We understand that there are plenty of reasons people might divorce or even end up committing adultery. With respect to the latter, we have an agreement that the person who commits adultery has to decide whether he/she wants to continue in the marriage or not. If they want to continue they need to hold that secret and carry that weight on their own. We think it's totally unfair to ask the other person for forgiveness and put the burden of the decision of a divorce on the other who didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
And don't get me wrong. Despite these practicalities I am a romantic and I have every intention of being with my wife until I die and so does she. We surprise each other with small hand-made gifts, special dates every month and such. We go to a therapist twice a year, not because we have problems, but because we want to avoid getting into the type of problems that cause people to divorce. And in doing that I suspect we're a lot more serious about our relationship than many people who say and think that marriage is for ever and there's that one special someone out there.
I get you feel very strongly about what marriage should be, what a relationship should look like and I think that's laudable and I wish you good luck with finding someone who shares that outlook or maintaining a relationship with that person if you're already in one. The hard part is putting what you believe into practice and making it work every day.
Just don't start about legislating this sort of stuff. Your view on sexuality is not shared by the majority and requires a lot of people to subscribe to (religious) assumptions that most of us have rejected in one way or another. It really comes across as tyranous.
On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk
What a fucking bunch of horseshit...
Republicans and Democrats have both fucked over a large swathe of the American population. There is no difference at all between them when it comes to siding with corporate interests over regular working class people... across the board aside from very few congresspeople...
Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.
I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. There should be a rational sense of proportion in terms of defining crime as a function of pain and suffering. This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury?
We should do a national survey and ask people to weigh which illegal and legal behavior would cause them more pain or sense of personal violation. We will contrast each illegal behavior with adultery. For example, what would hurt you more; someone stealing your wallet or someone having sex with your married spouse, leading to family conflict and trouble? How about jay walking or spitting on the sidewalk? How about breaking the speed limit? One would have to almost reach murder before the scale shifts, yet adultery is the only violation of others that is legal.
If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system. It is not based on special interest groups, such as creating jobs for lawyers and double resource usage needs for merchants.
This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury?
What an unfortunately silly person you are! Silliness can be amusing, and normally I'm in favor of it, particularly where the law is concerned. But one should employ wit when being silly, and wit requires some knowledge of one's subject matter, and I fear you have none in this case. Silliness without wit is merely tiresome, or clumsy in an embarrassing manner. Like Valvert was when trying to make an amusing comment on Cyrano's nose.
Lawyers are prohibited from testifying in any trial in which they are advocates except as to undisputed and unimportant matters, for reasons which I would think even the dullest among us would understand. But, when testifying under oath, they must tell the truth like any other witness. Very few ever testify, unless called as a witness in matters where they're not advocates (when they're not advocates they don't represent anyone in a matter).
As for making adultery a crime, I assume the punishment would involve wearing a scarlet "A"? Ah, those were better times, the times of the Puritans--though certainly not happier. But if the laws are inadequately draconian, not to say Orwellian, for your taste and you seek to legislate morality you must petition your legislators; they might buy it. After all, Prohibition was the law for 13 years (enforceable through the Volstead Act).
I agree with Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others
It's quite odd, I think, but perhaps the tendency to moralize about and condemn the sexual conduct of consenting adults is merely another way in which those obsessed with sex can safely think about it and express their obsession. A kind of voyeurism which avoids the need to peek through keyholes or windows and may be indulged in publically?
If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system
Your posts are painful to read and probably inflict more pain on their readers than my stealing a stick of gum did on the supermarket I stole it from. If only we had a rational justice system, you would be committing a crime and I'd be chewing on free gum every day with impunity.
I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime.
I agree with you on this point. If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. Those who say otherwise are much like the slaveowners, who, attached to their slaves, and not wanting to let go of the power they wield over them, want to maintain an unjust status quo. And whoever says that taking the slaves by force if one must and freeing them is tyrannous, only proves his own tyranny by that assertion.
I think this problem of adultery is, in our day, much like slave ownership was 200 years ago. The root of the problem seems to stem from a ruling class of men who like to treat women as property instead of individuals. Most adulterers out there are men for a reason. And so, they have worked hard to create a culture, and laws, that are permissive of such abuse. Look even at Donald Trump's behaviour towards his wife.
What is tyrannous is subjecting your marriage partner to something they haven't agreed to, THAT, now, is tyrannous, and ought to be punished accordingly. If you want to cheat on your partner, then you should never get married, it's very simple. And if you do get married, then you should divorce beforehand. Who is forcing you to get married? Is someone putting a gun to your head? Of course not. So if you do get married and you end up cheating, then you ought to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to cheat either. If you cannot control yourself, shame on you, and if you actually plan it out, even bigger shame on you. There really is no excuse. There can't be, not without claiming that people are not responsible for their actions. If people are responsible for their actions, then they are responsible for this too and should pay the price. If they cannot control themselves, it is much like not being able to control yourself and going on a murder spree against people who make you angry. It doesn't absolve you of guilt.
So freeing the slaves (and they are slaves, since they are forced to bear consequences that they never agreed to) from undeserved oppression is not tyranny, it is freedom. A society of the future cannot accept adultery in its midsts, just like it cannot accept slavery.
I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others.
You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.
I really don't see much of any argument as to why adultery should be treated differently than theft or worse crimes. It's really pathetic to be honest. Look:
Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian.
Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? :s Obviously in certain circumstances adultery would receive a lower punishment than in others. Just like some instances of theft deserve lesser punishment than others. But this doesn't change the fact that they should both be a crime.
Then you tell me about your own relationship, which is fine, but again I see no arguments at all. No arguments about the harmfulness of adultery, no arguments about the deceitfulness involved, no arguments about the effects it has on intimacy, children, and the rest of society, no nothing...
You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.
There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like Quoting Agustino
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved.
But I will let you know that that personally disgusts me as one of the more immoral statements I've read on this site.
Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what?
The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you.
Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. Also, as with rape and incest, the disapproval, shock and horror expressed by people's surroundings actually worsens how victims can cope with it. The same holds true for most emotional harms. I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with.
The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. Here's some more reading material:
There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like
You assert maintaining the status quo, I assert changing it. Both are equally taking a stance / action. I see no reason for there being a difference between us, merely because yours happens to be the prevailing opinion at this historical juncture.
Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program.
Yeah, and people have been living with slavery for millennia as well! You should get on with the program.
I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex?
Well, if the respective woman were to attend a psychologist, they would go through a process which would reveal that the cheating has nothing to do with her - she is not a cause of it nor responsible for it - but rather it has to do with the man and his (lack of) character.
The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with.
:rofl:
Just like slavery is what makes us civilised people and superior to the barbarians, as the Greeks used to say :)
The same old excuses that have always been given historically in support of an unjust and immoral practice. Downplaying the pain, telling everyone else to get on with it, it's part of what makes us human etc.
The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry.
Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. But there is a historical progression, as even Engels illustrates in his book, from promiscuity towards monogamy. It seems to be THE requirement for fulfilment in human beings in terms of sexual relationships and intimacy.
The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you.
Why is "the personal shit" going to be harmful if the underlying action is so benign or trite?
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice.
What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship.
One of the 'planks' in the original gay liberation platform was an understanding that a committed relationship is maintained by the desire of the partners to remain in that relationship, not by an externally enforceable contract, namely marriage; and that a commitment to one person as the most important person in the other's life isn't dissolved by having sex with somebody else. What would dissolve it is making commitments to other people that they are the most important person in one's life.
Granted, this was/is aspirational, and the drive for total respectability that led the gay movement to seek official marriage is altogether in the opposite direction.
None the less, many gay relationships were founded on the principle of mutual commitment - with no added legal enforcement, and last/lasted for life. These relationships seem to be a lot like most long term relationships -- not perpetual bliss, but a working through of ordinary problems as they arise.
A lot of gay men enter into relationships the same way straights enter relationships. Regardless of professions of trust, lust, and love no major commitment is made and at some point the couple go there separate ways. That it didn't work out is not tragic and may not even be unfortunate.
What is more unfortunate for gays and straights alike is when a long-term relationship with mutual commitments breaks up 25 or 30 years later. Chances are the cause of long-term relationships breaking up is the withering of interest, emotional elasticity, and things like mental illness, alcohol or drug addictions... stuff like that, rather than one partner having "adulterous" sex with somebody else.
What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship.
I disagree with you. My view emphasises the total commitment that love itself demands from the two lovers for their relationship to be authentic. Namely the willingness to even die for one's partner, a wholehearted giving of oneself to the other completely.
It is in virtue of disturbing THIS commitment that adultery becomes such a crime. It is in light of the failure of this that adultery is disturbing.
Hegel:In essence marriage is monogamy because it is personality — immediate exclusive individuality — which enters into this tie and surrenders itself to it; and hence the tie's truth and inwardness (i.e. the subjective form of its substantiality) proceeds only from the mutual, whole-hearted, surrender of this personality. Personality attains its right of being conscious of itself in another only in so far as the other is in this identical relationship as a person, i.e. as an atomic individual.
Further, marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — a personality in every possible way unique in each of the parties. Consequently, it ought not to be entered by two people identical in stock who are already acquainted and perfectly known to one another; for individuals in the same circle of relationship have no special personality of their own in contrast with that of others in the same circle. On the contrary, the parties should be drawn from separate families and their personalities should be different in origin. Since the very conception of marriage is that it is a freely undertaken ethical transaction, not a tie directly grounded in the physical organism and its desires, it follows that the marriage of blood-relations runs counter to this conception and so also to genuine natural feeling.
So the social commitment, the contractual aspects, etc. those are secondary. The gravity of the offence is spiritual in nature. You can replace spiritual with a Marxian-materialist word, and it will become no less true.
I am opposed. Having multiple partners that satisfy different aspects is not true love. True love is in despair: I choose you because I can not survive without. They are in this romantic, monogamous and violent. Love is violence, abuse of themselves and others, is unique. And obscene, today, because the feelings are ousted from a world where porn reigns more and more.
Zizek:You know what book I really didn’t like from this perspective? Laura Kipnis’ "Against Love." Her idea is that the last defense of the bourgeois order is ‘No sex outside love!’ It’s the Judith Butler stuff: reconstruction, identity, blah, blah, blah.
I claim it’s just the opposite. Today, passionate engagement is considered almost pathological. I think there is something subversive in saying: This is the man or woman with whom I want to stake everything.
This is why I was never able to do so-called one-night stands. It has to at least have a perspective of eternity.
If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice.
If only you were in charge! But I think you should consider requiring them to wear a scarlet "A." It far more effectively meets the need of the sexually self-righteous to shame others, and it goes without saying it would go a long way towards satisfying the interest of the prurient.
But would fornication be a necessary condition of the crime of adultery? What if a married person spent an inappropriate amount of time with someone not his/her husband or wife, but didn't engage in sexual intercourse with them? What if they just "made out"? Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? Proving actual copulation may be difficult. What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant?
You have to think this out, you see, if you really want to do the job right.
Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts?
Yes kissing on the mouth + sexts would still consist in adultery. Though obviously less severe than if it's a 6-month long affair that involved everything for example, including hotel bookings and the like.
Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason?
What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant?
Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.
I know what you're trying to say. Too hard to prove. I don't buy it. We can easily prove such things, there is always a trail left. So those people who try to say that it's too difficult to prove, really have no idea how the police (not even mentioning secret services now) work. And especially when dealing with regular folk, who would leave so much evidence behind anyway, it's really not difficult at all. Especially with modern technology.
So I think that we definitely have what it takes to do the job well, if only there was the will to do it. I see this much like the situation was 100 years ago with slavery. Largely, part of the ruling class wants to maintain adultery as legal, as part of their oppression of those weaker than them who cannot defend themselves.
And look, there has to be a punishment, just like for other crimes. I don't see why this is controversial at all. I mean if some guy steals your car, you want them to go to jail, but if they have sex with your wife, ahhh that's all good, no problem - very strange.
@Wayfarer - actually yes, during Communist times, adultery was punished for the most part, that's why it was very rare. It is one thing to permit immoral actions like promiscuity and not legislate against them, and a totally different thing to permit adultery which destroys families, harms children and spouses, and generates social conflict.
Yes, in the process of building a family, sure! I don't see a problem with that. Building a strong community of any kind requires some form of "surrender" and adjustment to mutual goals. Don't you think?
Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.
Evidence of what, though? It's necessary, first, to define the crime. What kind of conduct constitutes the crime of adultery? What is it that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless you think that standard should be dispensed with for this new crime)?
Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct?
Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.
Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. But if fornication is required:
May the vehicle be searched?
Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest?
If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.?
I envy those who will prepare law school/bar exam questions when adultery is made a crime
Once the crime of adultery is adequately defined, we may consider whether attempted adultery should be a crime as well, whether adultery should be a felony, the range of sentences available, whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment, whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime, and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself.
Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White People should get in the habit of tipping policemen because they do a dangerous job for little money. People who can't (or won't) tip should have their vehicles searched fairly regularly.
Codifying laws is a form of blasphemy because it implies that the Bible is not complete. Offending adulterers should be brought to an ordained judge (who should also be tipped). The judge will sort through the matter according to what Jesus would do, which is immediate stoning, I think.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White Well, I suppose someone will first have to file an official complaint with the relevant court (sorry not sure about the English terms). The person who files it would have to supply some evidence, or reasons for initiating the case. Then some relevant official will have to decide if the case is worth pursuing or not.
If the case is worth pursuing, then an investigation will begin of the people involved. Phones and text messages will be checked, emails will be checked, hotel bookings will be verified, relevant witnesses will be called to give their testimony, the people involved will be called to give their testimony. Vehicles or whatever may be searched if such is deemed necessary.
Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct?
Yes, for the most part fornication is required. But obviously making out for example, and similar types of conduct would also be considered adulterous.
Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence.
If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.?
No, only if a relevant court official decides to further pursue the case. The police should only be able to submit their evidence/report to the relevant court, which should decide if further investigation is required or worth pursuing.
Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.
Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged.
So far the police found SOME evidence which could indicate adultery. They have to take a decision if they will file a report for it, get the testimony of the witnesses, and submit it to court, or not. If they think the evidence requires it, then yes, otherwise no.
I think I'm going to convert to an ancient Sumerian religion or ancient Islam to worship God by having sex with prostitutes and concubines. Then I'll come back and be as draconian and sanctimonious as @Agustino is over sex with just as much religious fervour, the damn heathen.
VagabondSpectreJuly 31, 2018 at 17:08#2016630 likes
How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex?
How is imprisonment the lesser evil? Where's the balance of harm and justice?
What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe?
Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others.
So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone.
Why not just save us all time and money and cut the noses off of adulterers? Works great as deterrence, and then who's going to want to have sex with the adulterous nose-less freaks afterward?
Reply to fdrake Oh yeah, blabbering your mouth is certainly an argument. Again, all those people who just blabber their mouths in this thread provide no arguments as to why adultery should not be a crime.
Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others.
So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone.
Nope. This is bullsnit. If I go out on the street wearing a Rolex, I'm not inviting people to rob me.
Let's see some serious arguments if you have any.
VagabondSpectreJuly 31, 2018 at 17:50#2016670 likes
Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved.
Lots of things very seriously negatively affect other people. When a father goes to work in a mine, or on an extended military tour, the wife and children are very seriously negatively affected, emotionally speaking. While it's true that the actions of others can have indirect emotional impacts on us, it is not always the case that our emotional discontent gives us the right to forbid others from taking those actions. Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely.
The law already provides recourse when the marriage contract is broken, but you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults. In this case, your argument is that the future spouses of these individuals (and they themselves)are being seriously negatively affected by the fornication. Is that correct?
I don't exactly see how such a non-affair actually harms anyone. It's clear that consensual sexual intercourse feels good and has been a natural part of human biology and evolution since the dawn of man; sexually transmitted diseases are a risk but we risk disease all the time in daily life; by driving cars we risk death to ourselves and others, but the risk is not significant enough to forbid the action entirely. Any children that are produced from casual adulterous sex are probably better off existing, and so they benefit much more directly than they suffer indirectly from the criminal sex in question.
Maybe family members would be ashamed of you, but the mob-mentality of our family and our family's cultural values need not be legally binding. Sometimes people and families have really shitty cultural values, and we should be free to seek out our own.
My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Though the idea of other people fornicating might cause you emotional distress, your emotions are for you to sort out.
You don't actually have the right to never be offended.
P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive.
But if we make the comparison fair, if purposefully drop your Rolex watch in front of a homeless person and pretend not to notice, and then come back later and accuse them of theft, then you will have incited them (entrapped in this case).
Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely.
It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent.
My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices.
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive.
A needless generalisation, just like the previous one with the clothing. Some women do, some are offended by the opulence. Not all people have the same preferences.
It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex. No doubt that some women ARE like that, but not all. There are many women out there who find it offensive to be looked at sexually because of the way they dress.
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral.
Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think?
Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough?
It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent.
So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent?
I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative.
But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime.
Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices
You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not.
It's possible to condemn theft and murder while not condemning fornication.
It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex.
Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals...
?fdrake Oh yeah, blabbering your mouth is certainly an argument. Again, all those people who just blabber their mouths in this thread provide no arguments as to why adultery should not be a crime.
Marriage can be between many woman and one man, as spoken by God. If a man needs sex but is unmarried, he should obtain a holy concubine. Animals have sex for reproduction alone, we humans can have it for pleasure. The soul of the prostitute is the soul of the adulterer, and what can be more holy than exercising the divine gift of mutual pleasure.
Each woman who provides this service is a protected, respected wife of the community, and should be treated as such. Monogamy is an impoverished form of our true relationship to the divine, and breeds hate for the wife as property. The commercialisation of this is a sickness, money should not buy people, yet the institution of marriage is compatible with this sickness.
The woman and the man who embody the relationship with the divine the best are the prostitute and the adulterer, the essence of Western civilisation since the Greeks. Moreover, the essence of civilised life from the time of Sumer.
Why are you laughing? That's what the Jewish Law states, and the Pharisees weren't respecting it:
Leviticus 20:10
Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently.
Not that long ago, and for all I know it may still be the case in certain jurisdictions, it was required that there be grounds for divorce. Adultery being one of those grounds, it was necessary sometimes that married couples eager to rid themselves of each other do things like pose for pictures laying in bed with some man or woman they had never met before, which could be duly displayed to a court in order for it to have the authority to dissolve a marriage. Or, one spouse might have to pay a private detective to follow another in the hope of gathering incriminating evidence of adultery.
In these times, all states as far as I know have what's been called "no fault" divorce, and such things like "irreconcilable differences" are adequate to dissolve marriages, thus sparing people and the legal system much time, effort and money, though quite enough of all those things are nonetheless expended on matters related to divorce such as financial settlements and the custody and care of children. And I believe "fault" divorce may still be available even where "no fault" divorce is as well, though I'm not sure why. Happily, this is an area of practice I've managed to avoid.
I'd suggest that there are various reasons why adultery is not a crime, and that some of those reasons are likely similar to the reasons why the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages is no longer a crime. People probably will no more give up sex than they gave up drinking. There will be adultery, and there will often be adultery. So, the question which will be raised is--if it is made a crime, what kind of resources would have to be devoted its enforcement, and are those resources better spent in the enforcement of other laws?
My guess is many resources, and my opinion would be those resources would soon be thought to be better spent elsewhere. I suspect as a result that it would be a crime which would rarely be enforced, and probably repealed eventually, sooner rather than later. And there are, in fact, civil remedies available; claims can be made for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, consequential damages resulting from them, which may carry with them potential claims for punitive damages. Then there's the amusingly named tort of "criminal conversation." The availability of these claims vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I saw a headline recently in which a court apparently awarded damages in excess of 8 million dollars. And adultery I would think could figure in a court's determination on custody and financial settlement.
Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold.
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
So you're basing your moral stance here on old testament law, yeah? Jewish law, right? You practice Judaism? And Jesus did too, right?
No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"?
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
— Agustino
:rofl:
I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!".
Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently.
I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!".
No it's not hilarious at all, you two are just being ignoramuses. The interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees follow a certain pattern throughout the Bible. The Pharisees always attempt to set up TRAPS for Jesus, and show that he is a false prophet because he does not respect the Law. The Law demands death for adultery under certain given conditions. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say "Stone her", because then he would have broken the law.
This is standard commentary, not Sarah Rush BS. But of course, your ignorance of the Bible, your ignorance of how this ties in in the overarching narrative of Jesus, and your introduction of modern biases within the text prevents you from seeing any of this. Instead you interpret it as ridiculous.
Reply to Agustino You're right, it's not hilarious at all. And your views on adultery, biblical interpretation, human rights, and other matters, are not in any way ridiculous.
Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think?
Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough?
It would be, except that, as far as I know, you don't lose "more than half your stuff". And what is "half your stuff" isn't very clear. What if all my stuff is, on paper, owned by my mother, but actually I control it? Clearly I won't lose it. What if I acquired that stuff prior to my marriage? Then again, my wife would not be entitled to it. It is only wealth that is acquired over the duration of the marriage that can be disputed.
I'm not a big fan of those financial punishments because (1) they are relatively easy to avoid, (2) if someone is very rich, it won't affect them much, and if someone is poor, there won't be much to get anyway. So that's why I think we need some other form of punishment.
So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent?
Yes - from my observation, force works as a deterrent. It is almost the only way to keep people at a mass level in check. That is why in organisations where obeying rules is of the utmost importance - such as the army - there are very harsh punishments for disobedience. There, disobedience is rare.
In modern democracies though, the ruling class keeps people in check precisely by creating discord in their midsts, and giving them, as the Romans called it, "bread and circus".
I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative.
I see, then we disagree on this legal principle. This is a much more general matter though, whether the law should be rehabilitative or punitive (or perhaps both). It's a discussion that merits its own thread.
My own view is that the law should, in some cases, be punitive. Those are the cases where it is impossible to render back what has been taken. So if compensatory damages are not possible, because the action has produced such harm that it is impossible to compensate for it, then punitive damages are absolutely necessary. I see part of the process of redemption as being this suffering for one's crimes. So we cannot rehabilitate criminals without also forcing them to go through the suffering that their actions entail.
But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime.
But what about the justice of the law? Shouldn't the law be just?
You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not.
Well that depends. I'm talking strictly about adultery here, which isn't just consensual casual sex, it is a breach of the marriage agreement, which does directly impact third parties.
Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals..
Sure, there no doubt are such women, but not everyone is like this. Some women just like to be pretty and admired, for example, and don't want sex. Obviously being pretty and admired involves being attractive - but it's not the same thing as desiring sex.
You're right, it's not hilarious at all. And your views on adultery, biblical interpretation, human rights, and other matters, are not in any way ridiculous.
I think what is hilarious is your lack of argumentation :)
Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold.
Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself.
No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"?
Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do.
I don't understand why some people take Jesus to be a pink-wearing liberal - don't forget that it was Jesus who went angrily in the temple with the whip to kick the money-changers out. Do you disagree that immorality (in the absence of repentance at least) requires punishment?
Reply to Sapientia You have to ask yourself. If the Pharisees were always looking to set traps for Jesus, what trap was being set here? Why would it have been wrong, in the eyes of the Pharisees, for Jesus to say "stone her"? What part of the Law would Jesus have broken if he answered so?
What was the trap that the Pharisees were trying to set up for Jesus?
You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.
You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.
Why would the Pharisees have asked Jesus what to do if they were already following the Law? Again, if you look at through the rest of the Gospel texts, you NEVER find instances of the Pharisees saying something like "Shall we do X?" where X is something in accordance with the Jewish Law. But you always find instances of the Pharisees trying to trick Jesus.
Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.
Why do you reckon Jesus would have intervened if, for example, they were going about their business according to the Law? Didn't Jesus say that He came NOT to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it?
It doesn't really matter whether they were or weren't trying to trick Jesus. If that's what matters to you, then sadly you'll miss the point. Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan.
If your twisted interpretation were right, then Jesus would not deserve any followers, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian.
All this is meaningless drivel. Unprimordial, filtered puritanically. If you want to really understand civilisation you have to go further back to its roots. What took the barbarian Enkidu from the outskirts to the city? Copulation with Shamhat, under the light of Ishtar. The holy copulation measured the man and founded his honour within the traditions of Uruk; creating that unquantifiable debt we all hold to the community and each other.
It is no coincidence that honour, debt and sex are so intertwined; they are a divine triad in which each pair finds expression in the other. Sex and honour express themselves in debt; honour became its price, a subtlety lost by you false heralds of Western civilisation, cherrypicking little myths to suit your heathen agenda. Honour and debt find their expression in the blood-price, the virgin-pawn, the immeasurable excess of the unmarried woman; dealt with through sacred fucking, worth deriving from the promise thereof. Sex and debt mark the power of a man, his greater worth and the influence he has over the reserve of pawns and holy prostitutes; the true purpose of women.
Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan.
The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality.
You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.
When it comes to sex, men pay and women turn a profit. Men are more compelled to have sex more often. Men are the consumer and women are the merchants. The Pharisees were acting like consumer protection advocates, targeting the merchant, whereas Jesus was more of a social conservative protecting free enterprise. Women have the right to say no or yes about sex. They decide who they will sell too, and therefore decide the outcome in the end.
The opposite is true when it comes to using force. Men are stronger and if a man and woman were to be physically struggling in an ambiguous assault scenario, the guy would be blamed as the aggressor; unscrupulous business practices.
The holy copulation measured the man and founded his honour within the traditions of Uruk
Having sex with Shamhat just made Enkidu aware that he wasn't an animal. He remained in a liminal state until he was fed city food. That's what turned him into a city person.
It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen.
It isn't BS Agustino. It's my religion. If you payed more attention the posts are actually very carefully constructed. You're not making any real arguments, refute my claims.
It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen.
In some versions it was being fed bread and wine that initiated him. Bread and wine are two ways to store food, the great trick of the city people. If you store food you don't have to wander like an animal.
When Abraham is initiated as God's priest, it's by his being fed bread and wine. Bread and wine show up in other places as well.
Reply to Agustino Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread?
Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too?
Why should it be? Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. Even a non-Christian such as myself can see the merit in that. The standard interpretation is along those lines. You're just trying to be different and to fashion the teachings of Christ to better reflect your own warped thinking. I fear that you have latched on to this nonstandard interpretation that you've found online or in your own imagination or wherever some time ago, and that there's little hope of you relinquishing it.
The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality.
I didn't say anything about ignoring immorality. That's come from you, not me. And a woman about to be stoned to death is most definitely in need of help. Unless this woman is Wonder Woman or something.
Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread?
How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?
Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus.
I haven't ruled out that possibility, but I prefer interpreting this parable in the light of the other ones. If we see that the other encounters with the Pharisees bear a certain structure, then we ought to choose the interpretation which bears the same structure in this case, and not another one. Again, this has to do with faithfully interpreting a text.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned.
So if one is to interpret ad literam, there would be no laws, because all laws are made by us, who are sinners, to punish other sinners. That makes no sense, it's not a sensible interpretation. Why do you reckon this interpretation makes sense? Do you think that we cannot judge others because we are also sinners? If we cannot judge others, how are we to go about living, since living requires judging others (ie, is he going to steal from me if I hire him, etc.).
How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?
It's the lunatic fringe interpretation, so it has no bearing on the illegalization of adultery.
First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.
Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.
Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument.
First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.
Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.
Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument.
*sigh*
Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries.
Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries.
It's not meant to have any bearing. I haven't brought religion in as an argument to criminalize adultery. You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. I have explained to you that (1) you took that phrase out of context, and (2) there is no indication in the Bible that sinners cannot (or should not) judge other sinners - indeed, the whole Old Testament and the laws of Moses involved sinners judging other sinners. And even in the New Testament, when Paul was writing to other Christian communities, it involved judging other Christians, even though Paul was still a sinner. Third, I don't see why a religious command should necessarily be applicable to our social law. If we were to follow the BS you're saying ad literam and out of context, then we would have no laws. If someone steals your car, forget throwing him in jail! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Really? I think your intelligence is better than this.
In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).
I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that.
So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?
So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?
One assumes he would say something like:
Matt 5:19 "But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."
Matt 18:21 "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
I could explain to you why Jesus' message doesn't include any advice for creating any sort of legal structure, but I'd have to have some evidence that you've come in out of the evangelical BS zone.
Within specific contexts. Again, you take the injunctions of Christ out of context, and hence you pervert them. You also have:
Luke 19:26:I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.
Revelation 19:10-16:And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
John 2:13-16:When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
Here C.S. Lewis explains:
Mere Christianity:Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.
So this interpretation of Jesus as an all forgiving hippie, etc. is utterly criminal to the message of the Gospels. God is righteous & just, and therefore hates sin.
Reply to Agustino What is the point of this thread? Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative?
It just seems the simple response here is to accept that I'm neither Christian nor a social conservative in the way you define those terms. I certainly wouldn't want to be.
Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative?
The part about Christianity is a deviation from the topic of the thread to answer frank's position.
But no, you don't have to be a Christian to be a social conservative, obviously.
Apologetics Press:The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action.
The bible:13 At this the Pharisees said to him, 'You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not true.'
14 Jesus replied: Even though I am testifying on my own behalf, my testimony is still true, because I know where I have come from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
It seems Jesus could perfectly testify alone since he wasn't alone.
That's of course if you believe in fairy tales.
CiceronianusAugust 01, 2018 at 15:19#2018830 likes
Ah. It's Jesus time, I see. Well, I was contributing to this thread in my modest way as it seemed to address legal issues, to a certain extent. But when it comes to such issues, reference to Jesus is, I think, no more helpful than reference to Appollonius of Tyana; which is to say not helpful at all. But carry on, by all means.
Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself.
You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. Review the thread and read the responses to your despotic opinions, the only person humiliating themselves here is you.
Nah. You've just not read me charitably enough. You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. You said the latter yourself, the former is implicit in several of your previous posts (like making a profit on a wedding, imagine!).
What I'm doing is showing that your Christian understanding of marriage and adultery is a perversion of a far better, more primordial faith. As the Sumerian religion and the Greek view of marriage, bride prices and concubines prefigured your religious reading of Western civilisation, all I'm doing is going back a few steps to the pre-Abrahamic understanding. Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. All of this flows from my faith and occult allegiance with the ancient Goddess Ishtar, and I've used an interpretation of one part of the Epic of Gilgamesh to facilitate this.
It's highly authoritative, it flows from my faith and the first principles understanding of culture and morality that I have fostered as a successful international businessman.
Btw, if anyone asks me for sources on this stuff I'll change the topic slightly through uncharitable fisking, then do that repeatedly until everyone that tries, and fails, to offer real arguments against my position falls silent. The last one standing is the winner.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White We need a constitutional lawyer to weigh in on whether a law against adultery would infringe on religious freedom vis a vis the worship of Mighty Aphrodite.
You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman.
This is crap. Yes, obviously the wife does not own herself 100% - that's the purpose of marriage, that each partner owns the other to an extent. If you don't like that, then don't get married.
But this isn't the commodification of women as property, since it applies equally to the men. The woman ALSO has a fundamental right to exclusivity to her man. Have you forgotten about that? Of course you have, because you have to straw man in order to pull this off.
Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly.
No, that is not the correct placement since it precludes the possibility of "becoming one flesh". The whole of history, as even Engels showed, is a move away from promiscuity towards monogamy. Read it yourself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm
And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience,the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.
You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator.
Sure. Did I say that I think we should punish (legally) promiscuity and polygamy? No. Adultery shouldn't be punished for harming the perpetrator, it should be punished for harming the rest of society.
No. Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have.
It is an ancient custom, explicitly not forbade in the Bible, for a man to take more than one wife. They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. Just look at your fellow faithfuls' reaction to polyandry vs their reaction to polygyny, even in the academic scholarship on the topic. The facts are the facts.
Regardless, the Old Testament has it somewhat right, but nowhere near as right as the Sumerian acceptance of communal wives and the sanctity of concubines. As I said, and you have not addressed, with your inevitable strawmen, this is the true divine mandate. A relationship with God is a relationship with the community, and sex is part of that. It is mirrored in ancient honour systems, ancient systems of debt that index ancient economies. Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? This is the charlatanism you always pull, grasping at whatever straw comes to hand to vindicate your heathen baseness and ultimately your own ego - the conceit of the righteousness of the Christian.
There's no way you can grasp the true nature of divinity while mired in that Christian pit of filth.
Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all.
That is abusive and wrong. It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength. You see it with rich arabs, the Sultans, etc.
You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have.
Yes, the people in the Old Testament (and the New) are in many regards deeply flawed.
They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows.
False. What's this?
1 Corinthians 7:3-4:The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.
Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels?
In the work I've linked to, there are chapters that address the whole development of the family, from pre-history to today.
Focussing on the minutia to belay the point. Stop it. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine.
Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine.
It is impossible to achieve peak pleasure except within the confines of an exclusive relationship. By its very nature sex is exclusive - it wants to have the other for him/herself.
I repeat. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine. By its very nature, sex is communal and social.
I repeat. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine. By its very nature, sex is communal and social.
Then why do human beings, and animals too, experience emotions such as jealousy when it comes to sex?
Sexual jealousy is a perversion. It has nothing to do with the nature of sex, it has to do with the selfishness and short sightedness of the individuals involved. We both agree envy is a sin. Look at the theological distinction between jealousy and envy, and you'll see it's the latter. Having lost what you wrongly perceive as yours.
No, I disagree. Sexual jealousy is part of our humanity, and without it we are not human anymore. Sexual jealousy comes naturally, it is not something that has to be taught. Even animals display it.
The call of any sinner is to be understood as typical, as if their perversions and failings are the failings of all. What is natural is sexual pleasure, what is natural is freeform relationships, what is natural is the commonwealth of humanity, and sex is no more exclusive than the opinions of its participants.
You who would take your personal failings and brand them with the divine show the worst in men. The perverts, the hysterics, the hypocrites.
VagabondSpectreAugust 01, 2018 at 18:37#2019360 likes
(1) they are relatively easy to avoid, (2) if someone is very rich, it won't affect them much, and if someone is poor, there won't be much to get anyway. So that's why I think we need some other form of punishment.
Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though?
I've asked you why such a harsh punishment is needed, and you've said because existing punishments aren't harsh enough.
Yes - from my observation, force works as a deterrent. It is almost the only way to keep people at a mass level in check. That is why in organisations where obeying rules is of the utmost importance - such as the army - there are very harsh punishments for disobedience. There, disobedience is rare.
I'm asking this question seriously: why not just cut the noses off of adulterers then?
It's an extraordinarily powerful deterrent, and if marital laws are of utmost importance, then why not?
My own view is that the law should, in some cases, be punitive. Those are the cases where it is impossible to render back what has been taken. So if compensatory damages are not possible, because the action has produced such harm that it is impossible to compensate for it, then punitive damages are absolutely necessary. I see part of the process of redemption as being this suffering for one's crimes. So we cannot rehabilitate criminals without also forcing them to go through the suffering that their actions entail.
I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them).
Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well...
Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do.
And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right? Can't you hear the Pharisee in your own voice, Agu? Jesus Christ.
I don't understand why some people take Jesus to be a pink-wearing liberal - don't forget that it was Jesus who went angrily in the temple with the whip to kick the money-changers out. Do you disagree that immorality (in the absence of repentance at least) requires punishment?
What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment?
Alright. I'm going to weigh in with my Catholic upbringing now since it's starting to get embarassing. First off, Jesus came down to Earth for a specific reason. And it wasn't about establishing manners and mores - we can read about that shit in Martha Stewart Living's August issue.
Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. Not to punish them. Death and sickness are a result of sin existing. Jesus' miracles were not the breaking of natural laws but restoring the underlying order of a world without sin as it was before the fall of man. The paraplegic wasn't told to "get up and walk" he was forgiven his sins first and foremost.
So it is for this reason that Canon Law tells us that the innocent spouse may stop conjugal living with the adulterer for a maximum of 6 months. He should petition the Church for a divorce within that time but the law urges the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer.
And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right? Can't you hear the Pharisee in your own voice, Agu? Jesus Christ.
Yes, quite possibly. I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. I don't see how your position here is anything less than a hatred for justice and a love of sin.
What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment?
Kicking the money lenders out is punishment.
I Corinthians 6:9-11:Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God
Kicking the money lenders out wasn't punishment. Removing the money lenders from his Father's House was his right. It isn't punishment to remove an unlawful gain or to stop the possibility of making unlawful gains.
This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording:
Corinthians 6:7-8:The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
Moreover, you were washed, sanctified and justified is short prose for the fact that God can remove your sins, set you apart from the world and be declared "just" before God (note, that's a couple of grades up from "not guilty" of sin). Even fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, the covetous, the drunks, the revilers and the extortioners can be saved.
Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin.
Of course, all this if you believe in fairy tales.
Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?! :brow:
David Bentley Hart:Therein lies the deep comfort provided by the magisterial Protestant fantasy that the apostle Paul inveighed against something called “works-righteousness” in favor of a purely extrinsic “justification” by grace—which, alas, he did not. He rejected only the notion that one might be “shown righteous” by works of the Law—ritual observances like circumcision or keeping kosher—but he also quite clearly insisted, as did Christ, that all will be judged in the end according their deeds (Romans 2:1–16 and 4:10–12, 1 Corinthians 3:12–15, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Philippians 2:16, and so on).
So it is for this reason that Canon Law tells us that the innocent spouse may stop conjugal living with the adulterer for a maximum of 6 months. He should petition the Church for a divorce within that time but the law urges the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer.
It's not true that forgiveness is preferred over divorce in this case. God hates adultery more than He hates divorce - that is why adultery is listed amongst the 10 Commandments, which say nothing about divorce at all.
Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence
I read it. But I also read the Church Fathers such as Augustine or Aquinas (and other theologians such as C.S. Lewis), and I find their position providing much better arguments. All through human history justice was rendered by force, and in no other way. God Himself, will come in full force in Revelation to render justice. Christians aren't commanded not to judge, but rather to judge rightly -
John 7:24: Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly
I really don't understand this modern antipathy to force. It is certainly not Christian, and it is precisely one of the main reasons why injustice and sin are permitted to spread. Governing men takes a strong hand. Without a strong hand you cannot keep evil at bay. And Machiavelli was right - in government it is better to be feared, than to be loved.
I noticed this from business dealings. People respond to threats much better than they respond to kindness. Trying to be kind in business is the way to ruin. Instead, one has to be ruthless - this isn't the same as abusive, one must be just, but that justice has to be enforced by the threat of a big stick.
This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording:
Out of context.
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
That passage is precisely about the fact that Christians can judge for themselves, and should not take their internal problems to be judged by the unrighteous.
Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin.
No - cite me the passage where this is the case. It is only when there is repentance that forgiveness is possible. "Forgiving" someone who persists in their crime is not "righteous" but a sign of great moral weakness and a soft heart - it is immoral.
Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though?
Because the harm that adultery causes is irreparable, irreversible and cannot be compensated for, and thus, it demands punitive damages, not just the removal of the threat through divorce.
I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them).
Why? Suffering is what rehabilitates people. Without suffering, rehabilitation is impossible. That is the very biological purpose of suffering, to guide behaviour away from that which causes suffering. If we find a way to extinguish suffering after a crime, then that itself is a great crime.
Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well...
Why do you think so? Also, this is a metaphorical expression suggesting that the punishment ought to be proportional to the harm caused, where this is at all possible.
It is impossible to achieve peak pleasure except within the confines of an exclusive relationship. By its very nature sex is exclusive - it wants to have the other for him/herself.
This is one of the most transparent examples of superficially puffing up your own personal opinion to give it an illusory appearance of fact that I have ever stumbled across on this forum. Bravo.
This is one of the most transparent examples of superficially puffing up your own personal opinion to give it an illusory appearance of fact that I have ever stumbled across on this forum. Bravo.
Did you not see the quote from Engels' book? You must have missed it.
And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right?
— Noble Dust
Yes, quite possibly. I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business.
Why not? If they were acting in accordance with the law, sentencing both the man and the woman according to 2 witnesses, etc. why would He interfere? Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.
But why are you liberal about homosexual marriage, but not adultery?
Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to others apart from the people involved, unlike adultery. It is a sin, much like gluttony, that harms only those involved. No problem from a social point of view with that.
Reply to frank That's why it was punished by death in the past. If it was such a trifle as you make it sound, nobody would have accepted such harsh punishments for it.
Same thing with homosexuality. Families are frequently torn apart by it. Adultery doesnt always cause harm. Sometimes people evolve into open marriages from there. Or there is forgiveness and they move on.
So no. Homosexuality and adultery are about equal in the social consternation department.
Same thing with homosexuality. Familirs are frequently torn apart by it. Adultery doesnt always cause harm. Simetimes peiple evilve I to open marriages from there. Or there os forgiveness and they move on.
So no. Homosexuality and adultery are about equal in the social consternation department.
Not true. People rarely move to an open marriage because of it, and adultery represents breaking one's promises to another who is a VICTIM. I cannot comprehend how you can side with the abuser. That is the height of moral insanity.
In homosexuality, no one is a victim, there are no vows broken, etc. It's is very much different. That you draw an equivalence between the two only underlines your own perverted views. No wonder the West is in such decline. If folks can't even understand something as morally basic as this, then there really is a problem.
Reply to Agustino I would appreciate it if you would stick to analyzing the topic and stop making personal comments.
So now you say it isn't the suffering (since homosexuality definitely is associated with family suffering). Its that a promise was broken. Is that right?
So now you say it isn't the suffering (since homosexuality definitely is associated with family suffering). Its that a promise was broken. Is that right?
It's the combination of things. The suffering, the breaking of the marriage vows, the disrespect of the other person implied, etc. And adultery harms the family worse than homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't affect trust for example.
It's the combination of things. The suffering, the breaking of the marriage vows, the disrespect of the other person implied, etc. And adultery harms the family worse than homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't affect trust for example.
Homosexuality causes deep grief in some cases. Mothers become sad that they will never have grandchildren. So no, the suffering isn't the issue at all.
It's simply the broken promise. As Cicerionianus said, this could be a civil issue, but not criminal.
Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?!
I thought you were knowledgeable about Christianity but it is now clear you don't know what you're talking about. Timothy 1:1 15, 1:2 3, John 12: 47, Galatian 4: 3-7. etc. etc.
This does not preclude judgment on the final day. But Jesus did not come to earth to judge but to save sinners. This is so blatantly clear and repeated throughout the Bible and expressed and imparted again and again by the Catholic Church that denying it really only demonstrate the personal grudge you hold against sinners and the bias of your personal views when interpreting the Bible. The Dei Verbum tells you when interpreting SCripture you have to investigate what meaning the writers intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. You are instead using scripture to fit a pre-conceived result. This makes you a sinner yourself because Jesus commands you to forgive the sinner, even if he sins 77 times (Matthew 18:22). And you should heed it as we conclude in Matthew 18: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
It's not true that forgiveness is preferred over divorce in this case. God hates adultery more than He hates divorce - that is why adultery is listed amongst the 10 Commandments, which say nothing about divorce at all.
Yes it is.
Canon Law:Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate.
Moreover, the 10 commandments are old testament. It doesn't apply in the way the new testament does. The apostolic writings take pre-eminence. And while adultery is prohibited and is condemnable to death in the old testament, the new testament does not and preaches forgiveness as the better option.
I read it. But I also read the Church Fathers such as Augustine or Aquinas (and other theologians such as C.S. Lewis), and I find their position providing much better arguments. All through human history justice was rendered by force, and in no other way. God Himself, will come in full force in Revelation to render justice. Christians aren't commanded not to judge, but rather to judge rightly -
Appeal to authority. I don't see an argument here.
I really don't understand this modern antipathy to force. It is certainly not Christian, and it is precisely one of the main reasons why injustice and sin are permitted to spread. Governing men takes a strong hand. Without a strong hand you cannot keep evil at bay. And Machiavelli was right - in government it is better to be feared, than to be loved.
I noticed this from business dealings. People respond to threats much better than they respond to kindness. Trying to be kind in business is the way to ruin. Instead, one has to be ruthless - this isn't the same as abusive, one must be just, but that justice has to be enforced by the threat of a big stick.
Wonderful. You just equated using force with judging, which are quite obviously different things. Also, your personal experience is besides the point. You might want to reread St Augustine on the use of force. The Sermon on the Mount has a rather clear passage on judging others as well. Try reading that again too.
So then it isn't punishment to stop the possibility of unlawful behaviour by putting adulterers in jail, no?
No. And what kind of messed up reasoning are you going through to see the equivalence there? The equivalent would be stopping the adulterers in the act or barring access to the place they'd plan to have sex.
That passage is precisely about the fact that Christians can judge for themselves, and should not take their internal problems to be judged by the unrighteous.
This doesn't conflict what I said in any way. You're also mightily missing my point. "Washed, sanctified and justified".
No - cite me the passage where this is the case. It is only when there is repentance that forgiveness is possible. "Forgiving" someone who persists in their crime is not "righteous" but a sign of great moral weakness and a soft heart - it is immoral.
Matthew again. I already mentioned it above.
EDIT: I forgot. All this of course only if you believe in fairy tales.
Whether you like it or not doesn't make it false. You are siding with the abuser, and you are protecting the abuser. That is a grave moral offence, and it should be noted. It is much like telling me that "ahh he's a murderer? No worries, we should just forgive him". Where the hell is your sense of justice and morality?
Homosexuality causes deep grief in some cases. Mothers become sad that they will never have grandchildren. So no, the suffering isn't the issue at all.
Nope, this is just wrong. Mothers don't have a contract with their children that the children will have grandchildren. I have no clue what you're talking about now.
I thought you were knowledgeable about Christianity but it is now clear you don't know what you're talking about. Timothy 1:1 15, 1:2 3, John 12: 47, Galatian 4: 3-7. etc. etc.
This does not preclude judgment on the final day. But Jesus did not come to earth to judge but to save sinners. This is so blatantly clear and repeated throughout the Bible and expressed and imparted again and again by the Catholic Church that denying it really only demonstrate the personal grudge you hold against sinners and the bias of your personal views when interpreting the Bible. The Dei Verbum tells you when interpreting SCripture you have to investigate what meaning the writers intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. You are instead using scripture to fit a pre-conceived result. This makes you a sinner yourself because Jesus commands you to forgive the sinner, even if he sins 77 times (Matthew 18:22). And you should heed it as we conclude in Matthew 18: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
Where is the answer to my question? You have failed to answer my question and the rest is an empty red herring.
And while adultery is prohibited and is condemnable to death in the old testament, the new testament does not and preaches forgiveness as the better option.
This is false. Jesus clearly stated that adultery is grounds for divorce - in fact, the only such grounds.
Appeal to authority. I don't see an argument here.
And yours is what? Don't you see how ridiculous you are? You give me an article, I cite several sources, and mine is "appeal to authority", and what is yours? Appeal to a weaker authority, obviously.
Adultery does no more harm than homosexuality does. Therefore harm can't be the problem.
It's just a broken promise. That's all.
Nope. Breaking a promise is also a harm. And we're not talking about a perceived harm here, but a real harm. A perceived harm is when you don't act in accordance to my desires. A real harm is when I have a RIGHT that you break by acting in a certain manner.
And yours is what? Don't you see how ridiculous you are? You give me an article, I cite several sources, and mine is "appeal to authority", and what is yours? Appeal to a weaker authority, obviously.
My arguments can be found in the link, which is a short article. You didn't provide sources but names of authors. I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. So unless you're going to give me the exact places where I can find their arguments, you only appealed to authority.
To begin with, I am not a Catholic. Nowhere does the Bible state that divorce is not morally right in the case of adultery.
I never stated this wasn't the case. I said you can divorce but the Church prefers the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer. You're getting way to emotional.
I'm happy for you that you're not a Catholic as you'd most certainly burn in hell if you were.
Nope. Breaking a promise is also a harm. And we're not talking about a perceived harm here, but a real harm. A perceived harm is when you don't act in accordance to my desires. A real harm is when I have a RIGHT that you break by acting in a certain manner.
Having a cheating mate hurts like hell. If it becomes apparent that she's happier with the other guy, love demands forgiveness. People who are vengeful never really loved in the first place.
My arguments can be found in the link, which is a short article. You didn't provide sources but names of authors. I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. So unless you're going to give me the exact places where I can find their arguments, you only appealed to authority.
I did. You just didn't read them. For example:
Mere Christianity:Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.
The Catholic Church prefers adultery to be forgiven by the spouse?
Yes. Canon law tells you you may stop conjugal life as the innocent spouse. You may do this up to 6 months and you can petition the Church for a divorce within that time. If you don't then after 6 months you should move back in and forgive the adulterer. It is laudable in any case to forgive even before that time limit.
Love doesn't demand forgiveness in the case of willful sinning. That is a complete misinterpretation of Christianity. If you love someone, you want them to be holy, to be close to God. And so, you cannot "forgive them" or allow them to persist in sin. Such a thing is to love yourself more than you love your beloved.
Yes. Canon law tells you you may stop conjugal life as the innocent spouse. You may do this up to 6 months and you can petition the Church for a divorce within that time. If you don't then after 6 months you should move back in and forgive the adulterer. It is laudable in any case to forgive even before that time limit.
I didn't realize that. So the Church would really like to stay out of it. Wise.
Love doesn't demand forgiveness in the case of willful sinning. That is a complete misinterpretation of Christianity. If you love someone, you want them to be holy, to be close to God. And so, you cannot "forgive them" or allow them to persist in sin. Such a thing is to love yourself more than you love your beloved
So you announced that you're clueless about Christianity. Now you demonstrate that you don't know what love is.
So you announced that you're clueless about Christianity. Now you demonstrate that you don't know what love is.
Makes sense. Christianity is all about love.
No, you demonstrate you have no clue what love is. Love isn't allowing the other to do what they want. If you want to inject drugs in your veins, it is not loving for me to allow you to do that and to "forgive" you.
Love is guiding the other towards God. You should read, for example Kierkegaard's Works of Love. If you permit your beloved to rest in sin, you are not loving. So stop deceiving yourself, out of your own weakness.
I feel sorry for you. There's nothing greater in life than to truly and deeply love someone.
Yes, that is true. But, as I said, to truly and deeply love someone is to care for their OBJECTIVE well-being. It is not to let them do whatever they want. That's a perversion of love, it is inauthentic love. In truth, as Kierkegaard makes clear, that is self-love masquerading as real love.
Yes, and I can see how such a deception might lead to imagining God would agree that fear is better than love and that one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. Someone's whole moral and religious sense could break down when what drives them and what they need to excuse through disractions is their own avarice. They might even end up claiming that God hates [insert someone else's sin here] when of course God doesn't hate, God is love.
You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period. A ruthless business career and the word of Jesus Christ don't mix, Agu. Maybe this unresolved contradiction is why you're lashing out, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Deal with the beam in your own eye.
Reply to Agustino You've linked me to the part about Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello (coincidentally, my graduation thesis was on that). It has no bearing on the adultery discussion though.
That is quite false, Lewis is one of the best in the last 100 years.
Only in the eyes of Christians that are weak in their fate that they need apologists to shore up their faith. Lewis does not write with the logical rigour of Aquinas for instance.
I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae.
Augustine's Confessions seems to me readable only if one enjoys another's efforts to expose himself, as it were. There's something perverse about his eagerness to detail his sins, purportedly for the benefit of others. Rousseau's Confessions are sickly in a similar way.
As for the work of that embodiment of the sin of gluttony, Thomas Aquinas, it's not so bad, though very dry and of course thoroughly derivative of Aristotle.
I have no respect for C.S. Lewis as an apologist as I think he was rather inept. Take, for example, his argument Jesus was God because he said he was God. It goes something like this: Only a lunatic or liar would say he was God if he wasn't God. Jesus wasn't a lunatic, nor was he a liar. Therefore, he must have been God. He came up with it (Lewis, I mean) because he was annoyed with people thinking Jesus was just a great man.
That doesn't really work, though. For one thing, it assumes what was written about him decades after his death is accurate. And Jesus is portrayed as saying he's God or at least his son only in the Gospel of John, generally considered to be the last of the Gospels written This seems flimsy stuff to me.
Well, as long as we're doing the Jesus thing, I thought I'd chime in. Just saying.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White In all honesty, that sentence missed the word "again" but I didn't want to admit I read them as part of my Catholic upbringing. Not that I was forced, I just read everything I could get my hands on as a kid. Also the reason I stopped believing, too many irreconcilable contradictions in a book that only contained "truth". Logic trumped faith when I was 14 or so.
Had an agnostic period for a while. It was more of a respect for others misguided belief thing. Now I wish Philosophy of Religion would just die already with all the "proofs for Gods" having been disproved by now.
CiceronianusAugust 02, 2018 at 15:51#2022010 likes
Reply to Benkei Be proud of your Catholic upbringing. Revel in it!
If one is going to belong to a religious institution, or institutional religion, Catholicism is the way to go--or used to be, in any case. Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis. But back in the day, as they say far too often, it's ritual was beautiful, even glorious, filled with ancient forms and ancient mysteries; a link to the old Greco-Roman civilization and culture, with Judaism added, rather awkwardly, I think. What else can a good institutional religion be but beautiful and an artistic expression, appealing to what is natural in us?
Santayana was right about Catholicism, I think: Catholicism is paganism spiritualised: it is fundamentally naturalistic; and the transcendental spirit and the wise statesman may accept Catholicism, where it naturally arises, as a good poetic symbol for the forces and the issues of human life in that phase; not, however, as a scientific revelation of reality or a history of literal facts.
VagabondSpectreAugust 02, 2018 at 17:56#2022090 likes
Because the harm that adultery causes is irreparable, irreversible and cannot be compensated for, and thus, it demands punitive damages, not just the removal of the threat through divorce.
If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another? If so, please describe it.
Why? Suffering is what rehabilitates people. Without suffering, rehabilitation is impossible. That is the very biological purpose of suffering, to guide behavior away from that which causes suffering. If we find a way to extinguish suffering after a crime, then that itself is a great crime.
You're not describing reform or rehabilitation, you're describing threats and counter-threats; conditioning via negative reinforcement. If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime.
This position is a perfect mirror of the Christian version of hell; bad people deserve to go to the bad place to suffer badly.
Consider your hypothetical future son, who takes (steals) a chocolate bar from the corner store before they understand what money or property is. They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong.
Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression. Sometimes they're necessary, but generally only when a vulnerability must be protected (i.e: a grifter is locked up to stop their grifting, a drunk driver is locked up to stop them driving), or as a last resort, but many kinds of transgressions aren't of such a nature. We don't arrest Jay-walkers, and almost never would, even though they break the law. We may fine them which is on some level punitive, but it is also restorative, and compared to being incarcerated, a monetary fine is like a pat on the butt. If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws).
Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships. Their main function is to protect confidence in the emotional, physical, and financial security of a relationship by enumerating expectations, shared authorities, and offering recourse when they are not upheld. By cheating with another man, your wife can cause you indirect emotional pain, and possibly direct financial suffering, and this would be adequate grounds to have the contract dissolved (financially in your favor if your spouse is at "fault"). The financial suffering being repayed via the circumstances of the divorce, all that's left is the indirect emotional suffering of having been cheated on, but I don't think indirect emotional suffering in and of itself is something that we should seek to balance for the sake of justice.
Sometimes people feel emotional suffering for different reasons. You might feel emotional suffering at the thought of your future wife with another man, but some men do not (open marriages aren't harmful). In order to cause your ex wife similar amounts of suffering to teach her a lesson, we might have to lock her up for the full 5 years and beyond, depending on how hard you took it and how hard of a hypothetical woman she actually is. Possibly the divorce and or loss of custody alone would cause your hypothetical future ex-wife much more emotional suffering than you ever experienced as the result of her infidelity, in which case, ought we let her go free?
What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery?
If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why?
Why do you think so? Also, this is a metaphorical expression suggesting that the punishment ought to be proportional to the harm caused, where this is at all possible.
Actually, this parable suggests that the punishment ought to be the crime. Don't you at least find that to be slightly ironic? The hard learned truth of this parable is that it doesn't reduce crime but instead perpetuates it.
Some notions of justice actually do seek punishments that fit the crime, such as those which restore damage done or rehabilitate the offender (i.e: community service for a vandal, anger management for verbal harassment (where appropriate), a psychiatric hospital for the pathologically violent/dangerous, financial settlements for financial (and sometimes emotional) damages). When a litigant seeks punitive damages against an individual or corporation, it only makes sense to grant them when it is necessary to correct behavior of the defendant and deter other parties from engaging in the same behavior. In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress?
Since when is mere hurt feelings grounds for incarceration?
I agree, but that isn't to say that their injustice should be ignored, is it?
It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.
I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?
America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too?
Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis.
What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, a source of horror and bloodshed the world over
That seems to have been the case for institutional Christianity generally, I would say, and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Or perhaps more accurately, it has been the case with the followers of institutional Christianity generally. It's a function of what Christianity did not derive from paganism; Christianity's exclusiveness and intolerance, which Christians that obtained political power brought with them into government. The Catholic Church was beautiful and artistic to the extent honored its pagan roots, but the beautiful and artistic can also be cruel.
What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church.
It changed when it abandoned its ritual, ceremony and liturgy. In other words, when it changed the manner of its public worship. I had the misfortune of attending a funeral mass a short time ago. It's been some time since I attended a mass of any kind, but the ceremony, the songs sung, the language used, are dull, colorless, vapid, commonplace. I have no problem with the use of English (or whatever language) rather than Latin, though I think Latin is more attractive as a spoken language. The King James version of the Bible is very well written, and can be poetic, even. Modern translations are monotonous when read, agonizing when spoken. There seems nothing spiritual about it, to me. It's like attending a meeting of a the local Rotary.
Reply to Baden
You are both thoroughly mistaken when you think that love does not include hatred, or that to love someone means to act as they want you to act.
one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice.
It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless.
You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period.
I disagree... this is so wrong. Success in business takes many of the same qualities that are required to be a moral person. Discipline, being ruthless, being independent and not following the crowd, etc.
It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless.
Probably a language thing but there is no "good sense" for ruthlessness because that is devoid of compassion. You just seem to mean strict.
The comment in itself is devoid of content because it's very unclear under which circumstances you meant it to apply. Certainly not all because that would be stupid. I'm all for holding people to their word (eg. Be strict) but before there's a contract ruthlessness gets you nothing and strictness very little. It's just not a good negotiating strategy as it would never result in a win - win as you'll be too focused on your own requirements. You only need to be strict with regard to your bottom line in that respect, the rest should be all flexibility. That's some free advice. In any case, your personal experiences are worthless as an argument to begin with.
Also, I was wondering whether you'd want to retract your conclusion earlier that Tibetans are savages or whether I'm free to conclude you're a discriminating (in the bad sense) person. It will save us a lot of time in future discussions if you could clear that up.
I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business.
What? :rofl: :vomit: If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? What was Jesus, just another Jewish teacher? Upholding the old Jewish law? I'm assuming you haven't read any of the gospels? Again, are you professing Judaism, Agu? Specifically, an old, outdated form of Judaism which no one else professes? That interpretation makes this gospel anecdote completely uninteresting and not worth recording in the first place, within the context of Christianity as a historical religion. It would be just another moment in time in which Jewish teachers quarreled over the Tanakh, and then came to a consensus. Status quo maintained. Perpetrators stoned. Nothing interesting to be learned; no new wisdom, no heretofore unheard-of divine message. I'm shocked at how un-Christian you're interpretation of that passage is, for someone who claims to be a Christian.
Matthew 5:17-20:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite?
If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another?
Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other.
If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime.
By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way.
They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong.
No, I correct them by (1) teaching them, (2) telling them to return the chocolate, pay for it, and apologise. But if they repeat the offence, then they will get punished, because they should have known better.
Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance.
Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression.
Yes, they do have to be the first moral recourse against transgressions that are willed, despite knowing better. Where there is ignorance which leads to the transgression, then yes, threats of suffering are not necessary.
If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws).
In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry.
Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships.
What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery?
The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.
If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why?
Damage is reparable and not that extensive. You can pay back our dough.
In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress?
Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it.
It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.
I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?
America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too?
Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever. Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft?
VagabondSpectreAugust 03, 2018 at 20:23#2025860 likes
Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other.
How is "failing to achieve 100% intimacy" actually harmful? You've equated "not actualizing one's full potential" with "irredeemable harm". If I'm gathering firewood, and I don't actualize my full potential by gathering all the firewood I can possibly gather, have I done irredeemable harm to myself?
If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful? If the 100% intimacy is a good thing, then isn't 50% intimacy half as good?
By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way.
There are two conflicting ways of preventing crime we're discussing: Your way is to use the threat of violence and incarceration as deterrent, and my way is to try and address the root contributory causes of crime to begin with. My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course. Your ethical framework is more likely to destroy a transgressor than to turn the other cheek or rehabilitate, which is somewhat ironic given that you're the Christian, and I, the atheist.
So, when you encounter a petty thief who steals because of hunger, you would lock them up in a place of suffering as deterrence, whereas I would offer them food so that they don't have to steal. You would incarcerate a drug addict for possession, whereas I would send them to a detox facility/hospital/therapy.
In response to rising gang violence, you would invest in prisons, guards, and guns, whereas I would invest in schools, social assistance programs, decriminalization of drugs, and economic development projects in afflicted communities. We still need a police force, and dangerous or violent criminals must be captured for our own safety, but our fundamental approach to crime differs in the same way that old testament fire, brimstone and condemnation differs from new testament forgiveness, redemption, and salvation. You blame individuals for their actions completely, such that it would make sense to cut off the hand of a petty thief in a framework that is at times intuitive-utilitarianism and at other times obsequiously Aristotelian: "It's OK to cut off the right hand of petty thieves because their crimes are their own fault, it stops them from stealing, and it deters other people from stealing". You might object to the brutality of cutting off hands (but not to the brutality of American prisons) for mere petty theft, but you're intuitively comparing the gravity of petty theft to the gravity of losing a hand, completely subjectively, just like you deem adultery to be of equal gravity to being incarcerated for 5 years.
If adultery was a dangerous (significantly harmful) and violent sort of crime (it isn't), such that we needed to incarcerate adulterers for our own safety, we should also need to investigate the motivations of the adultery in question so that the "punishment" we administer actually addresses the causes of their crime (rehabilitates them). If, for instance, an individual was found to have an over-active libido (or some sort of hormonal imbalance) then hormone suppressors might be the only way to actually prevent them from committing adultery. If the spouse was sexually and emotionally unavailable to any reasonable degree, then this could be considered a mitigating factor in that sexual and emotional neglect can cause people to seek fulfillment elsewhere. People convicted of adultery might also be able to file a class action lawsuit against any advertisement or media company which produces content of a sexually provocative nature, in that it could be considered some kind of corruption of innocence or promotion of crime.
Once adultery is committed, and a divorce occurs, since they're no longer capable of committing adultery and actually doing any harm (casual sex among the unmarried is not sufficiently harmful that you think it should be a crime, correct?) why even bother keeping them incarcerated? If the spouse who was cheated on doesn't want their partner to be incarcerated in an attempt to reconcile, must the law be applied regardless?
This amounts to vengeful sadism. You get a pleasurable feeling of having satisfied justice when bad people suffer. It's un-Christian to judge, and it's un-Christian to torture.
Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance.
Humans are complex creatures who aren't either "totally ignorant" or "in full knowledge", in fact we're all somewhere in-between. When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant...
In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry.
Contracts generally come with stipulations about what happens if the contract is broken or dissolved. Marriage being an agreement between two people, why would they want the penalties to be incarceration for adulterous breach of contract? (You can have infidelity ("lifestyle") clauses in marriage contracts. For instance, Jessica Biel gets paid 500k every time Justin Timberlake cheats on her, but, they could not stake their physical freedom as a penalty for such a clause (because it's not ethical to incarcerate someone unless they've committed a crime or crimes worthy of incarceration)). In any case, making the adulterous breach of marriage contracts and civil unions a criminal act is a sweeping generalization that undermines the freedom of two individuals to make an agreement that suits them (i.e: an open marriage, or a marriage where if one of them cheats, they're allowed to dissolve the marriage without the adulterer being sent to prison).
You equate with and define adultery as a necessarily harmful and insidious crime (in the past you've compared it to cannibalism) making you ready to tyrannically dictate the sexual habits and freedoms of all other humans because you know whats best for them.
Then why don't I go to jail for breaching our birthday party clown contract?
Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law?
(contracts are individual safeguards of specific agreements, and they do not circumvent the law. Laws are a kind of broad public contract that we've all ostensibly agreed to, and they take primacy over private contracts. (i.e: you cannot contract your rights away))...
The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.
But you haven't actually answered the question. If you were in no way harmed by your ex-wife's adultery (you benefited), given that clearly no irreparable or irredeemable harm has been done, you would want her to go to jail and suffer anyway, because it could have upset you emotionally, and others need to be deterred. Correct?
Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it.
We need to discourage a lot of things because sometimes they lead to hurt feelings (capitalizing "trauma" doesn't change the fact that this is upset emotions we're talking about, not actual (direct) physical or emotional abuse) but that doesn't mean we should lock everyone up who deviates from our vision of perfect health. Infidelity already discourages itself because it ends marriages. Breaking out the whip is pure revenge.
Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever.
If we help a starving homeless person instead of incarcerating them as deterrence, this doesn't mean we're sending the signal to everyone else to begin shoplifting. Making an example out of the homeless person trying to survive or the very poor person who steals because they endure chronic hunger is a severe injustice. Here we have someone who already endures suffering on a daily basis, perhaps through no great fault of their own, and you think causing them more suffering is going to magically fix them, or that crucifying them as an example to others is somehow a justified course of action. Where is your understanding? Your compassion? Your Christianity?
Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft?
I consider it a mitigating factor, and depending on the level of poverty and the circumstances of the individual, yes, it can be adequate to excuse the crime entirely.
CiceronianusAugust 03, 2018 at 21:13#2025960 likes
Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law?
As a rule, a contract to do something which violates the law is void, or voidable, on public policy grounds. So, for example, a contract to sell one person to another is unenforceable; it doesn't exist in the law, it isn't binding. To give another example which better fits in what seems the overwhelming focus of this thread, i.e. sex, a contract to sell sexual services would be void in most jurisdictions.
The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal.
Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more.
The institutional religions and the religious would then be free to say what they wish to say, require whatever rituals, vows, incantations they wish to require and impose whatever conditions they think appropriate regarding what is a marriage for their purposes, but it would be more clear than it is now that what the religious insist are marriages is not governing as far as the law is concerned.
The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife.
If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful?
Well this is precisely the problem. The moment you allow happiness to be interpreted as subjective, something defined by the subject, from that moment, anything goes. There is no God (objective standard) - thus anything goes.
If individual X thinks that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If individuals X and Y think that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. Once we reach this point, then we cannot dispute the subjective assertion that is being made. Whatever a subject claims is the supreme truth - indeed, the subject's re-presenting WILL has been made the supreme determinant of good and evil. Their will re presents reality as it wants it to be.
I can consider it harmful because I disagree that happiness is something that can be subjectively determined. Rather, happiness is something objective, and has nothing to do with what a person thinks about it. A person can be, and often is self-deceived. Indeed, the person who is so self-deceived that he perceives himself as happy, when in truth he is not happy, is in a worse state than someone who is in conscious misery (check Kierkegaard on this point - conscious despair vs unconscious despair).
My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course.
Yes, my way views suffering as essential to redemption. It is only when an individual accepts that they deserve to suffer, and willingly and gladly embrace that suffering, saying, with Nietzsche's overman, one more time, again and again, I deserve this, that they can start on the path to redemption.
You view evil as the result of ignorance, I view evil as the result of a corrupt will. Since evil is the result of a corrupt will, education is of no help. More education will not cure a corrupt will. We're back to the problem that Socrates and the Greeks tried to address - whether sin is the result of ignorance, or something else. You side with the Greeks - sin is ignorance, and gnosis, knowledge, is what is required to fix it. I side with the Christians - sin is the result NOT of ignorance, but of a corrupt will. As St. Paul writes:
Romans 7:15:I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.
So the problem isn't that people don't know what is good and what is evil. No, not at all. People have, metaphorically speaking, eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - they know what is good and what is evil, but they choose the evil nevertheless. That is the moral problem in its essence.
Of course that, as one persists in evil, it is totally possible that one's will, will also corrupt one's intellect. Then we reach the maximum level of despair, which is unconscious despair, with a very slim possibility of redemption, since the sufferer identifies himself or herself as happy. Then the will has completely enslaved one's intellect, to the point that one cannot see clearly, and sees evil as good, and good as evil.
Going back to the point. Look at Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov. It is only when he admits his guilt, turns himself in to the police, and effectively demands to be punished that redemption is at all possible. Indeed, it is the suffering which redeems him. Without the suffering, and without acceptance of the suffering as just and necessary, no redemption is possible. So long as one tries to escape suffering, one has not overcome one's selfish will.
When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant...
Several points. I think being physically attracted to others in some circumstances is a sign of immaturity. A person who is married for example, but finds that they are physically attracted to other women is frustrated - there is something wrong with them, as if they haven't grown up, and they're still a 15 year old who doesn't know any better.
In addition, it is true that drinking dims the intellect. But at the same time, if one knows that one is such that drinking may lead them to commit sin, then they should not drink. Preventing temptation is often more important and more relevant than resisting temptation, and it has to do with knowing yourself. It is a slippery slope, you should not play with the fire. If you know that other women attract you, for example, and you are married, then you ought to stay away from having alone time with other women, because it clearly is dangerous for you. This has to do with self-knowledge, but also requires humility. If you are proud, and think that you can withstand any temptation, then you will fail.
Answering the rest later.
VagabondSpectreAugust 03, 2018 at 22:44#2026190 likes
The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal.
So for instance, a lifestyle clause in a marriage contract or prenup which stipulates incarceration as penalty would be unenforceable and voidable.
The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife.
This is essentially one of the points I'm making to Agustino. "Breaching contracts" isn't a criminal action per se. To legally justify incarceration adultery would have to be specifically defined in penal code as criminal. If it was indeed the case that adultery (defined as sex with someone other than one's spouse, if married) was a crime, then almost nobody would get married, and couples would ritualistically move in and out of each other's home to avoid being considered a common law spouse. If in the case Agustino's argument relies mainly on the breach of the marriage agreement itself, then people could simply alter their marriage agreements to allow for extra-marital sexual activity.
Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more.
If only humans wern't so damn ritualistic, superstitious, traditional, nostalgic, etc...
Comments (329)
Thanks for sharing that. I will be listening.
I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.
The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.
There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.
Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully.
You've intuited his position perfectly. I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. One thing that is certain is that it's going to take an incredible states(wo)man to bridge the current divide and prevent a national catastrophe. Seems extremely unlikely at this point.
Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. That actually seems like a legitimate possibility now if we can't somehow find some common ground between those who seem to hold incompatible worldviews.
Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right.
This is mostly perception and plays into the dichotomy where it concerns social progressivism or conservatism only. Both parties, however, work for the highest bidder (e.g. corporations) and whether you vote Democrat or Republican is a "same difference" where it comes to what laws and regulations would be passed.
It makes the perceived juxtaposition rather tragic.
Haven't got time to watch that yet, but the media is selling division on both sides and it is getting worse and worse. Yet another reason to make regulated state run media dominant. The profit motive of media most perniciously taken advantage of by Rupert Murdoch is a big player in this polarization (along with the ridiculous anti-democratic two-party system) and as long as that's the case I don't see things getting any better. I'll watch this later too though.
Yeah that's definitely true but this is pretty sober analysis for Kristol's fastidious audience of philosophically-informed neocons. I dislike the guy's hawkish positions a great deal but I also think he's really good in this smaller, more intimate venue where he's not bombarding the hoi polloi with noble lies for the sake of political expediency.
If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing - the first hour is largely focused on statistical analysis of the various voting blocs within the US - then skip up to just before the hour mark to get the "big picture" analysis. Definitely non-sensationalized imo.
I agree. The social liberalism and degradation of cultural matters when it comes to family, sex, respect and the like feeds into the consumerist and individualist mindset that has been ingrained in many young people already. They have heard the narrative of emancipation, freedom after the devastation of the two world wars, enjoying life, social mobility, you can pull yourself by your own bootstraps, 1001 second chances, etc. It is very difficult to shake this now, because it is self-reinforcing. They have other people who they see behaving like this, which, whether you like it or not, psychologically makes them feel secure in their way of life. It is indeed the crowd that prevents any sort of persuasion from functioning. And without breaking up the crowd, it is impossible to make any forward movement.
So that is the difficulty. It's not a matter of reason. It's simply a matter of will.
Quoting Erik
Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Political_Theory
Quoting Erik
Yes, I agree with that.
Ah, the lust for killing each other. As if that would make your country better.
Look, you don't have a famine. You don't have over 30% unemployment. Your government hasn't collapsed literally, the police department and the army still work. You don't have any of the historical reasons for a civil war. Your situation isn't as bad as for example in Mexico, and they aren't on the verge of a civil war.
What you have is a political discourse that just loves the hyperbole. It's going to be a civil war. Not just political upheaval like in the late 60's early 70's, but a civil war. That's hyperbole. What you do have is an out of control political environment where any kind of consensus isn't needed as it is presumed that the winner can take it all and simply dismiss the opposition. You don't have to form coalition governments. Hence the political rhetoric has drifted into two separate worlds that don't meet anymore.
Perhaps the reason why Trump supporters don't get it is that they just think that anybody critisizing Trump HAS TO BE a supporter of the democrats, or liberal, or leftist. This is very typical and indeed a similar approach can be found in the democratic camp when there is a democratic president in office.
We have the right/left divide too where the other side obviously seems annoying from one's point of view, but nobody thinks that killing your fellow citizens would make the country better. Because that's what is comes to in a civil war.
The development of the whole concept of "rights", has also played into these expectations. "Rights" in popular parlance extend way beyond actual rights such as freedom of speech, etc. People often say "it's my right to {insert immoral activity here}. I'm free to do it".
Watch the video first please. As I mentioned to Baden, the venue is not intended for a massive audience and is therefore free from the sort of hyperbole you rightly discern in the general media. The guys are clearly hostile to Trump but also extremely fair to both sides at points in the discussion - about as close to nonpartisan analysis as you'll find these days.
Also, I find the analogy between today's America and the America of the 1850's to be worthy of consideration at the very least. I've done a lot of reading on that era recently and it's not something I feel we should dismiss so quickly. Fast forward to the hour mark if you don't have the time or the desire to listen to the whole thing.
The age people get married at in Western societies is increasing. Why is that? Because more and more people are opposed to "getting tied to someone", since they perceive it as impinging over their individual liberty. So this endemic sense of individualism that is at the core of American culture certainly shows its head across many different areas of social life. That is why, for example, individual liberty is perceived as a higher value than marriage and devotion to another person/family for example.
I don't think so. I've heard of Dugin before - as a Russian Heideggerian - and I'm pretty sure I would have made the connection when I saw the video originally.
Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority.
How about some evidence? This doesn't have anything to do with increased labour participation of women, higher levels of education, higher levels of welfare, better birth control and longer lifespans at all?
Quoting Benkei
Not worth the price.
Quoting Benkei
And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). Labour participation of women though is a very anachronistic concept - it makes it sound like women never did any labour at all in the past, and simply stayed at home. But that's simply not true, at least it's not true for most of human history. Before the Industrial Revolution women worked alongside men. Women were also farmers, women were also involved in the trades, and so on so forth. This didn't prevent them from getting married though. So labour participation of women isn't sufficient to account for this. Maybe the fact that some women have become more individualistic and value their career more than getting married, now that's a different story and has nothing to do with labour participation of women. The is true for men.
In fact, in the Eastern European countries it is women who want to get married early, and men who put it off. Why do men put it off?
Quoting Benkei
If you call the joke University education has become today as "higher levels of education", oh well... Maybe on paper they are higher, but nowhere else.
Quoting Benkei
And higher levels of people who live on benefits.
Quoting Benkei
Has positive and negative consequences, but it has tended towards the negative. All our use of technology tends towards the negative, that is why even most new technologies are developed for military uses first, before they are introduced for civil use.
Quoting Benkei
Don't see a correlation...
I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, @Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others.
What isn't?
First off, I never said staying at home doesn't entail labour but since it isn't recognised as such and unpaid, it doesn't allow for independence for women. The causal link between the increased paid labour participation for women and this resulting that two people are necessary to sustain a family is lost on me. Care to explain?
Second, as a social conservatist you refer to a time when women worked along side of men. So which past are you gunning for now? Are women supposed to stay at home or not?
My take, in any case, is that the increased labour participation of women has led to their independence allowing them a third choice next to marriage or celibacy and living with their parents.
Finally, I never suggested a single cause for later ages of marriage either. Increased labour participation and the related independence for women was one of several causes.
I'm sure there are all sorts of cultural differences across the world but since your graph pertained to the USA, let's ignore Eastern Europe for now.
No, I call an education better than no education allowing more people to develop skills to make better decisions. Such as: don't get fucking pregnant at 16 and get forced in a marriage you don't want!
Irrelevant. The point about welfare is that it's safer to have kids at later ages as well.
This is empty of content. What negative consequences? What military application for the pill?
Longer lifespans means you don't have to hurry to get married and get kids.
Smaller families also means less kids, which also means you can start later.
Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages.
If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education.
In the good old days (prior to... say 1950, public schools performed the task of preparing millions of young people to take their place in society as productive cogs. A small minority of the masses were able to pursue enhanced roles which required higher education. After 1950, it became possible to begin shifting the task of educating people how to be good consumers, as well as productive cogs. As the economy changed, consuming became more important than producing, and now people are mostly taught how to consume, and for that there is 24/7 instruction available at all times, everywhere.
Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them.
I live in the world man! Go speak to some young people, and see what they say. Around me, most guys I know aren't interested to get married. Even those who have girlfriends, even in cases where the girlfriends have asked them to, they refused. And some are well into their 30s. Their reason is simple: independence. In virtually 100% of cases that I know. There are some guys I know who got married early, but they are a minority.
Quoting Benkei
That's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to women who laboured at home. I was referring to women labouring away from home.
Quoting Benkei
Simple. Double the labour force, half the salaries.
Quoting Benkei
Personally, I don't think women should stay at home, women should work, since work is an important aspect of life. But working does not imply lack of family values or getting married late. As I have explained, prior to the Industrial Revolution, women also worked in trades - away from home - or even farming (which didn't always occur on their own farm, many people didn't have this privilege).
Quoting Benkei
Sure, and many have, unfortunately, taken it. Why have they taken it? Because of increased individualism, consumerism, and selfishness. So the causality goes the other way around.
Quoting Benkei
They teach that in schools?
Quoting Benkei
The point is that as technology has developed, our moral capacity hasn't developed proportionally. So we're still the same brutes we were in the past, we now have better technology, and are thus capable of greater evil. That was a general point.
Now with regards to birth control, some people use birth control to avoid having children in order to foster intimacy with their partner in marriage or in a committed relationship. BUT most uses of birth control aren't for this - they are to promote fornication and sexual promiscuity.
Quoting Benkei
It is more difficult to have kids with age. In addition, the body's maximum reproductive capacity occurs much earlier, which means that the best time to have children is missed. So I disagree that longer lifespan means you don't have to hurry.
Quoting Benkei
I see smaller families as the effect of less kids, not the other way around.
Quoting Benkei
Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :)
I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-up approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.
So it's an odd and perhaps unrealistic amalgam of libertarian and communitarian values. In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a bit more.
I know it sounds absurd, but so is this world as it is right now damn it - and in many ways mine seems more sane. I'm obviously biased, though.
There is a range of factors here, including dating apps which effectively transforms dating into a Pokemon like game, but the strongest factor is that Millennials are, due to economic uncertainty and financial difficulties, establishing their careers first. We're also a generation that is financially worse off than our parent's generation, and wedding are expensive. I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years.
Quoting Agustino
Realize that in the Donald Trump thread, you shared a chart that showed "Age At Marriage in the USA". You don't live in the USA, so your anecdata here isn't very useful. It's also weird, to me at least, for a gy to be in a committed relationship, yet say that they don't want to get married because of "independence". That suggests to me that something else is at play.
That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. They loathed the materialism, the mechanization, etc. of the bourgeoisie. There's something undignified about living a life devoted almost exclusively to making money and buying things.
1. What is the relationship between public opinions and laws?
2. What influence does peer pressure (including the Media, etc.) have in determining worldview and outlook for your average individual?
Quoting Erik
Me too - at least to a certain extent. At the very least you don't want the government dictating who you marry, when you can have children, if you can have children, when you can have sex etc.
Quoting Erik
I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to hedonism, but, given the condition of your average human being, I think the tendency is certainly towards hedonism. It requires external restrictions (ie, peer pressure) in order to curb it.
Quoting Erik
I agree with your vision, however, I think it is almost impossible to achieve on a large scale. People are problematic. The whip has always been needed throughout history to govern most men. It is true that there are some enlightened people out there, who will freely choose the good. But they are not the majority. What makes you think that the MAJORITY of men can be so educated that they will freely choose the good, instead of engage in self-destructive behaviour, much like the type of behaviour described by Dostoyevsky in the Underground Man?
Quoting Maw
I agree. I think most of those guys are selfish, they are scared to commit to their girlfriend through marriage, and they also want to keep other possibilities open. I disagree with all those actions, and I have spoken to some friends and acquaintances too against it.
OK, I think I got the right comments. If not, let me know.
The result is that he isnt saying anything at all.
:up:
I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. I know what the problem is though.
The celebration of culture, widespread access to culture and history, and the development of culture are at an all time high. Yes, it's less Bach and Swan Lake and more spoken word, movies and Banksy. There's no "right" culture in this respect and enjoy all of them. Families (and not just the marrying kind!) are safer with less rape, less abuse, less incest and when it does go wrong, more courts that recognise victims instead of protecting perpetrators. All thanks to liberals.
A counter-movement against the sexualisation of the female body has been going on for some time and is gaining traction (just compare mainstream hiphop videos now with 10-20 years ago), which I think is a healthy development.
So, really it's the reverse, social liberalism has emancipated the weak and has evolved institutions to hold the privileged accountable.
Ah right, so people's salaries were halved and they have to work twice as hard now but they're still lazy fucks. Which one is it? Make a choice.
That should suit you just fine then as it suggests nothing ever can change. Yet it does. Weird huh?
As to your second post:
Quoting Agustino
Anecdotal evidence. Useless.
This claim is false. Salaries didn't half. They did stagnate and the increased profits as economies grew went to the already affluent (you know, the kind of economics that come automatically with most social conservative parties such as the GOP). Here's an opportunity to read up:
life time incomes over 6 decades
Quoting Agustino
Prior to the industrial revolution women worked unpaid. They were farmers but their men or families pocketed the money. The main difference is that their salaries are now their own. So it gives women more choices and therefore also the possibility to decide to marry late. They're still welcome to marry early but they don't. I don't see what the problem is with that and you haven't made clear what's wrong with marrying late to begin with.
Quoting Agustino
Not unfortunately. Thankfully. Their choices are first of all not forced on them by circumstance. Secondly, with age comes wisdom, so presumably they chose for better reasons. You apply motivations to it that are just your personal assumptions and not based on reality. Why can't women chose family life by planning to have children at a later age and to have less children? The two are not mutually exclusive you know.
Quoting Agustino
And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem?
Quoting Agustino
Not quite. Since women have more and different choices, having a zillion kids doesn't rate high among it any more. So there's a social change to have less kids, so you can start later.
Quoting Agustino
Factually wrong. If you define "best" as meaning the best chance for the health of the infant, then the “best age” for first birth, based on USA national data, looked at a different measure of a baby’s health—rates of overall infant mortality rather than birth defects— is at 32. If you only look at birth defects, the age is 26.
I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries?
Quoting Maw
Yes, I agree with this. Personally, I think such apps, and much of social media too should be heavily restricted. Not just with regards to dating and relationships, but with regards to quality of life and everything else, I think all the social media is having a very negative effect on society. That's why I've stopped using Facebook.
You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, sure, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant social values and live a life of relative simplicity and sanity on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Or, more accurately and realistically, to consume less? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha...
I didn't say they were lazy nor that they have to work twice as hard individually.
Quoting Benkei
Ever heard of inflation? It's a simple question of supply v demand.
Quoting Benkei
I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.
I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now.
This makes sense: It is easier to find work, marry, and establish a family during periods of expansion than during periods of contraction. Women joined the workforce in large numbers starting in the 1970s; this was less a product a women's liberation and more a product of contraction. In order to maintain the standard of living of the 50s and 60s, it became necessary for both adults in the family to work. During the last 48 years, it has become much more difficult for ordinary workers (70% of the population, at least) to maintain the quality of life. Declining wages, declining benefits, structural unemployment, inflation, and redistribution of income towards the richest 5%, has all played a role here.
If families abandoned the model of 1 breadwinner and 1 home maker, it wasn't because the model became old-hat. It just wasn't financially feasible any more.
Quoting Agustino
I agree with this. I appreciate the freedoms I have and allow others to exercise them as they see fit even though I don't agree with half of the shit going on. I don't like the sexualisation of women we have seen and continue to see but then I see movements in society that try to combat this. A silly but likable example: Project Body Hair
I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).
There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people.
You should ask this: what action that would bring the world closer to your ideal would not also hurt people?
Think of a female archeologist who wants to devote her life to science in the way a man would easily be allowed to in any era of history.
Fix the world without hurting her.
I'll let you think on how those people who chose to be single with half a salary compared to what they used to have have to do, while at the same time insisting they're spoiled and have 1001 second chances and their entitlements.
It is the entitlement generation. Who ever decided corporate managers are entitled to those insane salaries? (I'm actually reading an interesting book on how it's economically reasonable to leave money on the table when your skin or soul is in the game: Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb
Although his ethical groundwork is a mess, he does make some interesting points and a seemingly conservative writer as well. (Yes, I don't shun what the "other" side has to say).
Quoting Agustino
You quite clearly didn't read the research paper I included. It's also not a simple question of supply vs. demand as income leads to increase demand for the very goods those women help to produce. The stagnation of income is exploitation by the capitalist bourgeouisie as explained and predicted by Marx.
Quoting Agustino
Aha, so you want to limit other people's freedoms for selfish reasons. Talk about "individualism".
It's always surprising to me how unaware you are of these sort of contradictions in your thoughts. It's also prevalent when supporting Trump while insisting on honesty and character with a sort of "the end justifies the means" by destroying everything and then hoping people will come up with something "better" (where better is something you like).
Cue rationalisation why it isn't really contradictory.
Probably screwed, but let's not dwell on it.
Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values.
There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover.
Never mind starting a grassroots movement away from consumerism. Growing levels of poverty will drive people into simple living whether they jolly well like it or not. But a little theory can help the victims of pauperization cope with it better.
There is, though, good reason to block the flow of commercial, consumer messages into one's brain. Buying stuff generally doesn't serve the individual's interests all that well; it serves the interests of the seller. Life is much calmer without all the commercial noise and consumerist flailing. It is easier to make sense of life if one isn't chasing the spurious promises of advertisers or buying stuff one doesn't really need just because everybody else has it. (I'm not guiltless here; I periodically experience hunger pangs for more stuff.)
A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.)
Ooh I'll look into these things. I need to keep abreast of what's going on in the world; maybe we're already in the incipient stages of a significant paradigm shift.
Well, the super-rich may find it in their interest to sacrifice a part of their wealth for the sake of maintaining a certain level of social stability. This would be preferable, I imagine, to keeping it all and running the risk of having it appropriated (expropriated?). Pragmatism.
Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons.
True. And most of us secretly envy the rich even when we bash them. I have many significant flaws, but I honestly have zero desire to be filthy rich. I should make it clear, however, that I'm not advocating poverty. It's something much more modest and reasonable than that.
I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)
And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our capitalist/consumerist context: the complete lack of social recognition one receives by living in such a way. So it's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - but these things are historically contingent and I don't see why our understanding of what a successful life entails will not be subject to change at some point in the future.
Anyhow, I think slight changes in values working incrementally over the next 50-100 years could ultimately result in a radical shift. It would be nice to think there'll come a day when people look back and think about how insane their ancestors were: in the way they related to others, to their world, and to themselves. IMO, an ontological shift is what's needed more than a political and/or economic one. They're related, of course, but that's the way I see it.
How, exactly, does this affect you?
In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively.
Quoting Erik
Actually, I share a lot of this as well and I'm not alone. I'm working on a technical implementation of an idea I have that will save the European pension industry about 3 billion EUR a year. The solution, if it does what I and my partners say it does, is "pure gold" as some market participants have described it.
Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3).
Those are obvious problems. I think a form of social conservatism - of the type I've outlined (poorly perhaps) in broad strokes - combined with economic progressivism holds some potential. But then there would have to be an infringement on the economic freedom of some individuals, unless there's some sort of divine intervention precipitating a shift in human beings from where we're at now (joking here).
:up: :100:
Please keep us posted. Sounds like you guys are way ahead of the curve.
I would agree there is a split such as you describe (as long as we are discussing a general, big picture meta-view).
However... I feel that it is dwarfed by another much more primal division. Let us imagine two neighbors in an average, economically struggling city. Let’s say that Jane is a far left-leaning lesbian. Her neighbor John is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who appreciates the wit and wisdom of Fox news. Jane rolls her eyes at John’s four huge American flags displayed prominently as well as his enormous pick-up truck with the fierce patriotic bald eagle motif. John sneers at Jane’s rainbow flag and hippie decorations. And they both resent the other’s many election signs on their lawn.
Two totally different people, right? Or are they merely mirror images of each other? Aren’t they really more alike than different? Isn’t this a matter of tradition, preference, taste, emotions, etc. Important and serious, but not totally unresolvable.
Now contrast John and Jane with just about any political “mover and shaker” member (Liberal, Right-winger, or whatever) of the so-called economic 1%. The cream of the crop, the billionaires calling the tune that the rest of us have to dance to. Compared to the ruling billionaires, John and Jane look like siblings who just prefer different TV shows.
This is the division which divides us.
This schism is fostered by the mega-wealthy to keep the “common people” from uniting against them, and surrounding the castle with a pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd. Nevertheless, I am certain that any attempt at some kind of French Revolution 2.0 would be disastrous. Subtlety, calmness, and stealth are needed. Think WWII French Resistance rather than guillotines and Marie Antoinette. Violence as a political game-changing plan has been shown to be counterproductive, and is a certain magnet for a gov’t crackdown.
But the basic dynamics and outlines of the drama are getting more similar each day. The pressure increases each day, as does the temptation to blame our neighbor. Whatever the prescription is, I do not know. In any case, this appears to be the only slightly exaggerated meta-view and diagnosis from this corner.
But ultimately... or as ultimately as one can imagine... there is no “us and them”. There is only us, creating and re-creating our world in each moment. The planet Earth is a given, a solid reality of matter and energy. The human world is our creation, and always has been.
When you become a rich elite and book your spot in Trump tower, I will come gunning for you with my socialist ressentiment... and several requests for material goods I covet. :up:
:lol:
Yeah I was thinking something like, "psst, Benkei, hey, uh, I know I just talked a good game about not caring about money and material things and all that, but, uh, can I get a job with your company?"
:halo:
I find it highly unethical to create an unpredictable world for the next generation. That way, the previous generation completely avoids responsibility because they didn't live their young years the way the next generation does. There is no Skin in the Game, in Taleb's words. Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part. If human had done this from the beginning, it wouldn't have gotten to the current point, and so, this idea would not work if applied now.
Just to clarify, how are your views different from Jordan Peterson fueled incel nonsense?
I see. The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me.
With regards to this:
Quoting Maw
I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000. Now you may spend $4,000 here, but you'll certainly pocket the difference. Now, to give you an idea, average take-home wage is around $600-800 here. Taking $800 as the upper limit, that means that from a wedding you can potentially make in revenue more than you'd make in an entire year of work.
Is this different in the US?
Quoting Maw
Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening.
I come from an ex-communist country. So during communism, things were REALLY social conservative. You wouldn't see people kiss on the street or in the park for example. Cheating on your partner was almost unheard of, since the consequences, from the families involved and also at the workplace were severe (it did happen, but it was mostly with the powerful, well-connected, etc.). Dating someone who was seen as socially inferior to you was unacceptable (you could lose your job). Parents played a big role in who you could date and who you couldn't. Talking about sex was extremely rare, it was a taboo subject. Showing off based on sexual conquests and the like was fringe behaviour. Etc.
Now I'm totally opposed to such a controlling form of social conservatism. But I'm saying that I know first-hand that tough laws and a strong culture can certainly prevent lots of bad behaviour. The danger here though is hypocrisy.
After the fall of communism, and with the advent of democracy, sexual immorality has GREATLY increased. Lots more divorces, a lot more cheating, more promiscuity, etc. So with the influx of Americanism, and American culture, we have also seen a dissolution of moral values. And Eastern Europeans quite often try to mimick American culture - probably the influx coming from Hollywood movies.
Quoting Maw
I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy?
This is a terrible terrible strategy for the majority of people. US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. It's also fair to assume that those who do start businesses tend to not have debt (e.g. student loans), or have a certain socio-economic network that can help support them through investment and guidance. Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. If your goal is to save for a wedding than the stable choice for the vast majority of people, for better or worse, is a wage job.
Quoting Agustino
Well I have no idea what currency you are using, but in USD the average wedding costs between $25K - $40K, and typically includes about 100 - 200 guests. Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple), but often times a registry is set up where guests can purchase certain household items and appliances for the couple (which can be as low as $30). All-in-all no one is making money from a wedding in America.
Quoting Agustino
Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. You can either educate your kids about sex, and protection, etc. or impart your delusion by telling them your false, unsubstantiated, quasi-religious views on the matter, but you're not going to stop people from engaging in it. I have no clue how having a few sex partners in your past contributes to divorce, and I've already shown you that 1) the average number of sex partners has decreased from the Boomers to Millennials, and 2) monogamy is, overwhelmingly accepted over polygamy. I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex.
Quoting Agustino
If social conservatism includes getting married young and having children young, which you suggest, then those added expenses are antithetical while living in an uncertain economy or one with stagnate wage growth, and other increased expenses.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are socially conservative, and fiscally liberal. That's literally a joke on 30 Rock.
Might seem that way to an American but we have a socialist and social conservative party in our Parliament with about 10% of the votes.
Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance).
We need an bad-tempered economic ACT UP organization for the masses. The boat definitely will need to be rocked to shake loose all that cash stored up by the oligarchs.
Quoting Agustino
Which of these two is actually your view? The second seems appropriately modest, would you presume to know that the first is absolutely the case?
Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely.
Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?
From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.
I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.
Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.
Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.
Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"
I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned.
Haha yeah, even better! But seriously though, Benkei's company sounds like it would be a great one to work for on a number of levels: a sense of responsibility to the interests of the larger community, not solely concerned with the bottom line, a collaborative rather than dictatorial approach, etc. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come. Working in a situation like that, with inspiring people and goals, sounds like it would be pretty exciting. I'd gladly take less money to work there over more conventional companies. And this captures what I'm getting at: seeking out work that's rewarding in ways far beyond the immediate financial payoff.
I do need to start researching companies like his in order to lay out a (more) detailed approach to a different way of thinking about work and economics more generally - one that aims to incorporate economic activity within an emerging new context. It would involve shifting the common perception of business activity - its primary aims and methods - to reflect a (possible) new set of social values.
I'm referring more to those who lived in the era of the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the Terror (or shortly afterwards), and who anticipated both the tremendous possibilities and the many dangers of a world shaped by the bourgeoisie. Think Burke or Hegel or the Romantic poets instead of, say, Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand or Mitt Romney. Much different sort of "conservatism" imo; in many ways even more "progressive" in outlook than our current progressives.
Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mainly, but also influential among some conservative philosophers up to the middle of the twentieth. More cultural than strictly economic in nature. Respect for the arts, for the natural world, for the community, for "classic" notions of education, etc. To my knowledge, it's never been a unified and coherent movement that's translated into a relevant political party. Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions, but that's a contentious issue and I don't think there's a necessary connection. Highly critical of certain aspects of modernity, though, such as the emphasis on autonomous individuality, on environmental degradation, on the reduction of human beings to exploitable resources, etc. but without necessarily longing for the world which preceded it. In that it's somewhat amorphous and ambiguous.
Incidentally, some of the thinkers I have in mind have been far more influential among the Left than the Right - at least since the mid-twentieth century - as the latter has become more and more fixated on financial freedom, deregulation, limited government, etc.
That's my quick take. Have you read Tocqueville's Democracy in America? I think that nineteenth century work moves within that culturally "conservative" sphere I'm talking about.
That's possible. I posted some thoughts on fascism a bit ago. Fascism is a tricky subject because it doesn't seem to have essential content. It is more a method of operating, and not a particularly pleasant one, and less a doctrine. Communists aren't pleasant either, but they definitely had/have specific doctrines. Hitler had his obsessions, but those weren't necessarily those of the larger fascist movement. Ditto for Mussolini, the French and Hungarian fascists, et al.
For instance, the role of corporations wasn't entirely resolved in National Socialism. Some of the earlier Nazis wanted to nationalize the large conglomerates. Others were more oriented toward capitalism. Who were the truer fascists? The ones that came out on top.
We Anglo Americans deplored and denounced Germany's attempted seizure of Poland, the Baltic states, Byelorussia, and Ukraine. Those fascist bastards! But what was unique about it, other than that their occupied colonials happened to be white people instead of brown people? Belgian treated its Congo colony horribly. The British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial operations were never described as "benevolent, charitable, or humanitarian operations". They were business propositions for the benefit of the Colonial powers and were carried out ruthlessly. We expanded across North America at severe expense to the natives -- like severe unto death.
I'm not excusing the fascists of course -- I'm just demonstrating that it can be difficult to nail down specific features that characterize them, and nobody else.
A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business. There are serial entrepreneurs out there, people who start business after business, and they build several successful companies. So it's a skill, just like anything else, a skill that can be learned. The first time you ride a bicycle you will fall and get hurt, but soon you will learn. It's the same thing here.
Quoting Maw
It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business.
Quoting Maw
USD equivalent.
Quoting Maw
Little money compared to US wages.
Quoting Maw
Very expensive. A lot more expensive than here. Here a good wedding is around $4-5K. Luxurious one can be in the $25K-40K, but then so would the gifts (presumably, if you will organise such a wedding, the guests will also have $$) ;)
Quoting Maw
I don't think this is right. As I said, here during communism sex for teenagers was quite rare. Sure, some sex will be happening, but more important than that is the culture that surrounds it.
Quoting Maw
I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.
With regards to the communist countries and this:
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/04-08-2009/108593-marxism-0/
See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold
So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US.
I think Sinclair Lewis was right. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I don't say fascism will come here, but "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" seems to me to be as good a description as any of those prominent politicians and pundits who claim to be conservatives these sad, sorry days, and it appears all that one must do to obtain the acclaim of those who pass for conservatives now is to waive the flag, and brandish the cross.
But pop culture and Hollywood are only several threads in a skein of influences. Peers, family, church, school, work, "public opinion", the press, etc. all add numerous additional threads to the skein of influence on individual behavior.
"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience,
The secret about advertising with sex is this: Sex is bait only as long as sex isn't too available. The tension between "X is a sexy product; buy it and you'll be sexy too" plays against the backdrop of social restriction on sex. (Yes, you think there are no restrictions on sexual behavior in American -- but it is not so.)
Selling cars with fried chicken and french fries wouldn't work very well in the US because there is so much fried chicken available. Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity.
The sub-set of the typical American who actually try to have carefree unlimited sex is a very frustrated group.
Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? I am not suggesting that no one should start a business, but that it's an extremely risky venture, not to mention exhausting and time-consuming. If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary.
I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised.
Quoting Agustino
The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt.
Quoting Agustino
This is simply circular, because you're already defining sexual promiscuity as inherently immoral without reasonable justification. Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views
Well, when you finish University, you pretty much know nothing about anything when it comes to money-making. Might as well learn how to earn for yourself.
Quoting Maw
That depends, you can run your business such as it's basically a one-man operation. It works in the service industry at least. That's what I did for a long time actually. Personally, I was still making a lot better than I would have otherwise. And the interesting thing is that I know that I can always make money, I don't need anything or anyone else. Even if my business fails as I try to grow it, that's not an issue for me anymore, I will always be able to go back to earning as an individual contractor. And what's more, I also know that I can learn pretty much any useful activity and make money out of it, because that's what I've done. I need no university degree, no certification, no nothing. There is, in a funny way, no better security than this.
Quoting Maw
Starting a business is risky, but remaining a salaried employee for a very long time is also risky (I would even say MORE risky). The risk may not feel the same, since, as a salaried employee, the risk is spread over a much longer period of time, whereas the risk of a business is concentrated in a shorter time frame.
Quoting Maw
Well, Bartmann did pay his $1 million dollar debt back after his company succeeded.
Quoting Maw
I would disagree, it damages your capacity to bond with your partner and the degree of intimacy you can achieve. Now there are gradations. Having multiple long-term partners due to failed relationships and some such is bad, but not as bad as promiscuity for example.
So you should investigate it.
Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity and the like? Afterall, merely having sex doesn't mean that the sex will be satisfying. Sexual satisfaction is difficult to achieve precisely because of the overabundance of sex, and its mismanagement.
Are you sure that 99% of the population can tell the difference? I would think it's the other way around, only 1% of the population can tell the difference.
The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circus. It is precisely because the plebs, which are the majority, cannot see beyond the circus, that they get so distracted by it, and thus caught up in it.
If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there?
Which bit upset you boss?
C'mon bro, this is a philosophy forum, don't be such a crybaby when people disagree with you.
If AJ walked up to me in the street and asked me for sex (again, she really needs to stop doing that), I'd be like "Angelina baby, you gots to stop listening to Agustino. He's been sniffing powdered holy books and really needs to get out and meet some real live humans that don't just exist in his fevered sex-addled imagination fuelled by watching too many Russian porno vids starring Donald Trump, urine, and assorted women of ill-repute". And then I would bless myself and walk away knowing I had made the world a better place.
Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. That is objectively fucking terrible advice to give. You constantly spew these puritanical notions revolving around sex and women without any justification, while constantly ignoring my evidenced counterarguments. In conversation after conversation, for years, you've treated the evidence I provide to you as inferior as your own anecdotal experience. In one instance, you stated "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul", which is something you do far more often than you would ever admit. I think that statement sums up who you are. This is a philosophy forum, but you rarely ever do philosophy. You just spew nonsense, and I'm frankly tried of it.
No, I said you should investigate why only 30% of businesses survive more than 10 years. You have done no such thing, and by your own admission, you are ignorant of it. And yes, my business may close in 7 years say. But in those 7 years I may have earned hundreds of thousands that I took out of it. In your books, that counts as a failure (survived less than 10 years), but not in mine. There are quite a few such situations actually.
It's just a thought experiment that I think illustrates the perversity of American culture quite well.
Dude, the point is you are burdened with a caricature of the being called "American woman". There are American women on this very forum. Why don't you ask them how willing they would be to drop their knickers for a handsome celebrity on first meeting? Then after you get the shit verbally slapped out of you recognize they are people with mostly some moral integrity and not walking pussies waiting to be fucked by Brad Pitt. Please...
No doubt that there are people with moral integrity too who would refuse. I'm not questioning that. But you have to understand that your average US citizen isn't the well-read and intellectual Baden who has thought through his moral views extensively.
And if you ran the experiment on women? What's your answer. I'm all ears...
I'm not sure, if I had to guess, I'd say 5-7, but it depends how well it's pitched. If it's in the middle of the street, there will be more no's, if it's in private, there will be more yes's.
See, that's insane to me, but it does help us to contextualize your world view. I'll say this, I know at least ten western women well (and I have no evidence to suggest American women, whom I've met many of, are significantly different in the realm of sexual mores) and I'm sure none of them would accept a random offer of sex on the street from anyone, but would find it creepy and disgusting. So my answer would be roughly zero. The question then arises as to who the hell you have been hanging out with of the fairer sex? Do you spend your days in houses of ill-repute, go-go bars or randomly creeping around docklands areas in the wee hours? Are these the only women you know?
Depends on what you understand by know well. It could be anywhere from 5-50 if you include acquaintances or friends of other friends. Mostly from my stay in the UK. I've gone to clubs there, for example for a friend's birthday, and I've seen what some of them can be up to (thankfully not on myself, though one did try).
Quoting Baden
Because from what I've observed, some of them are easily convinced to have sex with a random guy! Now if that random guy was also a celebrity, why would they suddenly back off?
So, largely drunk young women in nightclubs being chatted up by men and then on your presumption being taken away for sex equate to a random sample of women from the general population being stopped in the street? Let's try again, of those women you know well who did not join your friend's birthday party to cavort around while you bravely fought against the imposition of sexual immorality on your person, have you seen more than fifty percent of them get spirited away for sex with random strangers on a first meeting, or do you just presume that would be the case? And if so based on what?
You have this bizarre bourgeois/religious notion that sex is valuable only if it is experienced as seldom as possible. It's a delusion that your lobbyists have promulgated far and wide.
Quoting Agustino
The Plebs had a phrase, "You had better give us bread and circuses if you want to keep your heads, because maintaining your idle privileges would otherwise be an intolerable inconvenience, and we would do away with the lot of you!"
Quoting Agustino
Actually Brad Pitt did walk up and offer me a BJ. I took him up on the offer, of course -- I have nothing against promiscuous sex. We went into a convenient back alley. It was OK, but I thought he lacked a certain commitment to the role. Anyway, he doesn't seem to be all that bright. Here's a picture I took of him trying to figure out how many fingers he has. He kept losing count.
Tragic, just tragic. Very sad.
Cue no true scotchman...
Thanks for the heads up, Benkei. I'll look into these programs and get back to you (if you don't mind) if I have any questions.
So those are my views based on my own experience and I would not attempt to impose them on anyone else. I think they're fairly moderate and reasonable positions that (yet again) may even align in a couple areas with "progressive" positions. I'm not nearly as obsessed with the issue as Agu is, obviously, but also not entirely dismissive of his criticisms of lax sexual morality and the possible negative effects this may have on individuals and the community more generally. I went through a stage in my life (early twenties) where, like a lot of my friends, my primary goal was to get laid as much as possible. Not too difficult around these parts, especially for someone working in the bar business as I was.
I agree with @Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others. I'm only adding my opinion since I don't think Agu's somewhat extreme position should be taken as the only "socially conservative" option out there, even if it is shared by many others who identify as such. I do respect his self-control on the issue though - he's a much better man than me in that regard.
As to your take on sex; apparently I'm a social conservative then.
I found the article on adultery I linked interesting. There's something weird about people banging on about family values, abortion and promiscuity and then going about undermining them at a personal level. I get people are fallible, I hardly live up to the man I want to be (I procrastinate like a sloth), but then I don't go about demanding that people live a certain way.
Yeah there's really not much that I've found that I disagree with you (or Baden, or Michael, etc.) on. I have an aversion for (and a suspicion of) people who moralize too much. Strange how they often seem to be the worst offenders of the very vices they rail against in others.
I'll check out that adultery article...
Why do you take my position to be extreme? At the very least it is the position that is almost unanimously shared by the 5 main world religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Mainly that all sex outside of marriage (or a committed relationship, which in my view one should only start with the purpose of getting married, and anyway, marriage is a spiritual event, and doesn't require a church ceremony) is immoral.
That's true, but I do think it's a bit extreme in a relative sense. Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. But perhaps things are different in other parts of the world. Anyhow, I respect your own personal stance on sexual purity a great deal, but I don't think it would resonate with people who weren't raised within a strict religious tradition. What's the old saying about not making the perfect the enemy of the good? I'm trying to be pragmatic.
But that's not my position. My position is no sex outside of marriage. And by marriage I don't mean what happens after a religious or public ceremony which officiates the relationship between two people. By marriage, I mean a committed relationship, in which the two people intend to live together until the end of their days. That can occur way before any actual marriage ceremony.
So pretty much if people have sex in committed relationships, I don't see that as a problem.
Hmm, then it seems as though you're using the term "marriage" in a highly idiosyncratic sense, one which is far removed from common usage. This is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone equate "marriage" with "committed relationship." I have heard of "common law" marriages, though, so maybe there's some legal precedent.
I made the logical assumption that "no sex outside of marriage" meant no sex until you're actually married, which I took to mean remaining a virgin up until the marriage is formally recognized by the wider community. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. It still seems bizarre to me that anyone would refer to himself or herself as being married - ostensibly in a "spiritual" sense - when they aren't legally married.
This unique understanding of marriage does however make your position seem less extreme. I'll give you that. A quick and perhaps dumb question: say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" for good - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? Seems like marriage only makes sense within a context which includes things like public and formal commitment, separation, divorce, etc.
Hmmm, you're still misunderstanding my view a bit I think.
Yes, I do use marriage in an uncommon way. But that's because I want to be critical of an institution that is many times hypocritical - as if a communal ceremony is ever necessary for there to be a lifelong bond between two individuals. Just like in the days of Jesus, the Pharisees followed just the letter of the law, not its spirit. We have started to do the same today. External marriage, which is the societal one, is merely a reflection of what happens between the two people and God. It is something that officiates what has happened between the two people and God and makes it public to the world.
But this societal marriage is merely a reflection. What matters is what is behind the reflection, the source so to speak. In some cases, there may be nothing, in which case the marriage is fake, and a hypocrisy - a sham. And in some other cases, if there is something, but there is no marriage (no social reflection) that in no way condemns the two people involved.
Quoting Erik
No, so as not to cause confusion. The point that matters is that I think that a breakup affects one spiritually as much as a divorce.
Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense. In this case, foreign intelligence is accused of meddling and there's a suspicion of collusion also under investigation. Indicting and following the rule of law through investigating possible crimes has nothing to do with McCarthyism.
I hope you're getting paid for making all this shit up otherwise your lack of knowledge is comical.
Just a method to avoid admitting he's wrong. He does it regularly. It's totally inconsistent with the discussions at the start of this thread.
Yes, obviously I cannot get a graph about the kind of marriage I'm talking about since it is an internal, subjective matter as Kierkegaard would say, not something objective that can be quantified. I use the objective as an approximation though - remember that, in my view, the external reflects the internal, exactly as I said above.
Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better. I take it that two people, while not legally married, can still be married in a much deeper and more authentic (spiritual) sense. On the other hand, two people who are legally married may still not be genuinely married in the sense you have in mind.
Is that the gist of it? Something still seems awry with it but I can't pinpoint exactly what it is. I think it may have something to do with continuing to use the term "marriage" instead of eschewing it altogether, maybe for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something along those lines. I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term, though, and assume it has something to do with that.
Yes, exactly.
Quoting Erik
Well, according to the Bible (and unlike in Buddhism for example), marriage is a divine command first and foremost, it's not (just) a social matter. God ordered man and woman to become one flesh. So in light of this, it seems hypocritical to give precedence to marriage merely as a social matter, when clearly the Christian religion emphasises the spiritual aspect, that is between the two people and God.
That is also why I ascribe such danger and gravity to sexual immorality.
You do realise this was an excellent opportunity to clarify your idea but you didn't say "I consider that the same as marriage"? I suppose I shouldn't complain about you starting to make some sense but to claim there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're saying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position.
You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. But, as I said, under my view, the internal determines the external, which is its reflection. Now tell me Benk, if the external ultimately will reflect the internal, doesn't that mean that there is a relationship or a correlation if you will between external, legal marriage, and the spiritual marriage I'm talking about? Doesn't that mean that you can infer something about the latter by looking at the former? It clearly does, if you want to say it doesn't, then you have to deny the relationship between the two.
In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? The implication of your position would appear to suggest that they're not really married, which, if I'm being perfectly honest, seems a little rude, Agu!
It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.
Please also note that an "atheist" may actually be a believer in their heart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian
Being a believer has nothing to do with saying and repeating a couple of words and attending church. It's again, an internal, subjective matter, that may be cashed out in a multitude of symbols, some overtly religious, others less so.
Then you should say so instead of obfuscating your position especially if I highlight an issue that we would agree on. There's s lot we can philosophise about without having data. Your position was that promiscuity caused people to get married later. It's not understandable why you say this, with your level of English, instead of, for instance, promiscuity causes people to get into meaningful relationships at a later age.
I think promiscuity is a personal choice and choices only exist because of opportunity. I think depriving people from opportunities would be terrible and it's much more worthwhile people chose a meaningful relationship from all opportunities than have the choice enforced due to circumstances.
Okay, I won't deny there are parts of this position of yours that I find appealing. I never particularly cared for the ring aspect of marriage, for instance, and see its as an (oftentimes) ostentatious and superfluous addition to the "inner" commitment you're referring to. But why not just go forward with the public, legal, and conventional components of marriage if the relationship is already sealed in a more lasting way?
What do you mean why not go forward with it? Personally, I do think that, in most cases, legal marriage ought to be one of the "fruits" of the authentic, spiritual relationship between two people and God that I was talking about before. But I admit that there are cases where this may not happen or may be delayed. There could be financial reasons, other social reasons, who knows each individual case...
Then let me ask a different question: Why would you go through with a formal marriage given the distinctions you've made between the inauthentic and authentic, the private and public, the bodily and spiritual, the outer and inner, etc.? It would seem completely unnecessary to do so unless you're interested in, say, the practical (legal) advantages of being married.
Okay, you are right, I should have put it this way, it is clearer.
Quoting Benkei
On a fundamental level I agree with you, since morality cannot be enforced. If you do the right thing because you are forced to, then there is no merit in doing it. It must be freely chosen.
At the same time, I see that promiscuity has social costs in drawing others to this kind of behaviour and influencing our culture. The fact that it harms others (instead of merely oneself) suggests to me that we must do something to minimise it, just like we do something to minimise theft (or prevent others from being affected by it) for example (which also harms others). Take the clear case of adultery - adultery clearly harms other people, in quite significant ways, in ways that are more significant, in fact, than if you were to steal their car for example. So why is it that we use FORCE to stop theft, but we don't use force to stop adultery, given that the consequences of the latter are more serious on the individuals involved than the consequences of theft?
Legal marriage is a way to share the "fruits" of your spiritual marriage with society. It is a cause of bringing the community together to celebrate what has happened between the two people and God. So it is only natural, once again, for the inner to reflect itself in the outer.
I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical (or whatever superlative you like) people cannot be atheists? Even if they identify as such? I can imagine two great human beings who cannot find it in their hearts to believe in God and yet are 100% committed to each other "for better or worse." I'm just trying to draw out the curious implications of your stance.
I'm not trying to be tedious here, but within a spiritual relationship is there a moment when the marriage is recognized by both partners? Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it a sudden or gradual process? Depends on the specifics of each case? Can one be "married" to more than one person? Etc.
Yes, they cannot be ethical human beings if we understand "atheist" in its spiritual sense.
Quoting Erik
They may identify as atheists, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily are so in their hearts. For me, religion is fundamentally a matter of the heart.
Quoting Erik
It depends what you mean by "believe in God in their hearts". The way I see it, if you don't believe in God in your heart, then you cannot love other human beings fully either.
Quoting Erik
Yes, I would say so.
Quoting Erik
No. The moment of marriage is when they decide to commit to each other fully. So I would say sudden, but it builds up to there.
What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering?
I like the direction you're going with this in some ways, but it seems to lead to another counter-intuitive conclusion (similar to your sense of marriage): that there may be plenty of self-professed atheists who are actually theists, and many self-professed theists who are actually atheists. Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc.
So where genuine love is found so too will God be found? No need for anything else? No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are necessary, etc.?
But with that I'm completely out of my element and will vacate the field. Feel free to expand on your notion of God but I haven't much more to add.
Yes, definitely agree. I wanted to mention this example too.
Quoting Erik
I have no qualms with that, it sounds very much like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.
Quoting Erik
Beliefs are not necessary, but faith is. I believe the Law passed on by Moses, and previously the Noahide laws, are codifications of this Love as it pertains to ethical behaviour.
I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time!
:up:
Sounds good. Thanks for answering my questions.
I'll have to backtrack and check out his earlier contributions. I think I found a couple potentially serious flaws in his position as I just read through and processed the last couple pages again, but I think I'll back off for the moment. :razz:
First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. It's precisely because I'm aware of the cultural basis of my view that I'd refuse to legislate on this. Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. This is simply dependent on time and place.
Second, it's not a given short term relationships aren't meaningful to begin with. This is not mutually exclusive.
You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances.
So when one spouse cheats on the other at the most that's a contractual breach and not a criminal issue.The aggrieved party can chose to forgive or to divorce. It's my understanding that in some States in the USA it is relevant who caused a divorce and that damages can be awarded. I suspect this leads to very messy and harmful divorces for everyone involved because the more dirt you throw at your ex the better off you'll be financially. And this is the main problem right there ; whose fault is it? The wife that cheated? The emotionally absent husband? The external pressures of jobs, rebelling kids, family death, illnesses etc.? Explicit and implicit expectations could be reason to divorce but were they obligations to begin with? The obligations of a marriage are not defined or set in stone and subject to continual negotiation and cooperation as the needs of those involved continually change. It is difficult to navigate the muddy waters of a marriage and love alone isn't enough.
Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. It's not the end of the world or you can choose not to get involved in the first place. Nobody is forcing anyone to be in any relationship.
No, I'm not using them interchangeably, I just want to discuss the most serious one out of them, because it's easier to see the wrongness there, where it is magnified. Like Plato discussed a city, instead of a person, in order to investigate morality.
Quoting Benkei
If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all.
Quoting Benkei
Let's limit ourselves to adultery for now. Islam does not permit adultery.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.
Quoting Benkei
Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat.
Quoting Benkei
No - not if you're referring to breakups that occur due to adultery. That's like telling me the consequences of your business partner driving your business into the ground to earn a profit himself are well within expectations for any adult starting a business with someone else. This is utterly insane. If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place.
Again, the damages of adultery are irreparable. No amount of monetary compensation can ever repair the damage that was done. So it's not like your average business contract where you can quantify some damages and pay them. These are unpayable.
I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. You shouldn't project your view of universality on me. You can disagree of course but that's neither here nor there in my moral system. More importantly though, and you don't address it, is that any set of morals are time and place dependent and therefore fluid.
Quoting Agustino
Unsophisticated Rousseaun contract theory. First off, insert all arguments against Rousseau. I'm a fan of Rawls though but his contract theory is time and place dependent, non-universal and reflective.
Second, the social contract, whatever it is, is not legally enforced either - only laws are.
Quoting Agustino
This is a silly argument. Hands were cut off for thievery as well. Times change, morals change. You're being really selective with which culture and which time you select. Your bare assertion how terrible the consequences of adultery are, is not borne out by reality. YOU think it's very important and therefore assume considerable damages. The rest of the civilised world shrugs it off. Take France for instance since forever. Or English rakes etc. during a time the death penalty for adultery existed. All this contrary to local religious mores no less.
Quoting Agustino
Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian.
Quoting Agustino
Why do you think people invented pre-nups? You seem to replace your personal notion of what marriage should be with what's going on in the real world. I'm married and my wife and I regularly state "assuming we're still together then, it would be great...". We understand that there are plenty of reasons people might divorce or even end up committing adultery. With respect to the latter, we have an agreement that the person who commits adultery has to decide whether he/she wants to continue in the marriage or not. If they want to continue they need to hold that secret and carry that weight on their own. We think it's totally unfair to ask the other person for forgiveness and put the burden of the decision of a divorce on the other who didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
And don't get me wrong. Despite these practicalities I am a romantic and I have every intention of being with my wife until I die and so does she. We surprise each other with small hand-made gifts, special dates every month and such. We go to a therapist twice a year, not because we have problems, but because we want to avoid getting into the type of problems that cause people to divorce. And in doing that I suspect we're a lot more serious about our relationship than many people who say and think that marriage is for ever and there's that one special someone out there.
I get you feel very strongly about what marriage should be, what a relationship should look like and I think that's laudable and I wish you good luck with finding someone who shares that outlook or maintaining a relationship with that person if you're already in one. The hard part is putting what you believe into practice and making it work every day.
Just don't start about legislating this sort of stuff. Your view on sexuality is not shared by the majority and requires a lot of people to subscribe to (religious) assumptions that most of us have rejected in one way or another. It really comes across as tyranous.
What a fucking bunch of horseshit...
Republicans and Democrats have both fucked over a large swathe of the American population. There is no difference at all between them when it comes to siding with corporate interests over regular working class people... across the board aside from very few congresspeople...
I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. There should be a rational sense of proportion in terms of defining crime as a function of pain and suffering. This deliberate injustice could be because lawyers like to cheat and they have rigged the system so they can get away with it. Lawyers are also not required to tell the truth in court. How many prosecutors or defenders go to jail for perjury?
We should do a national survey and ask people to weigh which illegal and legal behavior would cause them more pain or sense of personal violation. We will contrast each illegal behavior with adultery. For example, what would hurt you more; someone stealing your wallet or someone having sex with your married spouse, leading to family conflict and trouble? How about jay walking or spitting on the sidewalk? How about breaking the speed limit? One would have to almost reach murder before the scale shifts, yet adultery is the only violation of others that is legal.
If adultery is still legal, then everything less painful in the survey should be legal. Or if we keep all the less painful illegal, than anything worse than the least should be illegal. That is a rational justice system. It is not based on special interest groups, such as creating jobs for lawyers and double resource usage needs for merchants.
What an unfortunately silly person you are! Silliness can be amusing, and normally I'm in favor of it, particularly where the law is concerned. But one should employ wit when being silly, and wit requires some knowledge of one's subject matter, and I fear you have none in this case. Silliness without wit is merely tiresome, or clumsy in an embarrassing manner. Like Valvert was when trying to make an amusing comment on Cyrano's nose.
Lawyers are prohibited from testifying in any trial in which they are advocates except as to undisputed and unimportant matters, for reasons which I would think even the dullest among us would understand. But, when testifying under oath, they must tell the truth like any other witness. Very few ever testify, unless called as a witness in matters where they're not advocates (when they're not advocates they don't represent anyone in a matter).
As for making adultery a crime, I assume the punishment would involve wearing a scarlet "A"? Ah, those were better times, the times of the Puritans--though certainly not happier. But if the laws are inadequately draconian, not to say Orwellian, for your taste and you seek to legislate morality you must petition your legislators; they might buy it. After all, Prohibition was the law for 13 years (enforceable through the Volstead Act).
It's quite odd, I think, but perhaps the tendency to moralize about and condemn the sexual conduct of consenting adults is merely another way in which those obsessed with sex can safely think about it and express their obsession. A kind of voyeurism which avoids the need to peek through keyholes or windows and may be indulged in publically?
Your posts are painful to read and probably inflict more pain on their readers than my stealing a stick of gum did on the supermarket I stole it from. If only we had a rational justice system, you would be committing a crime and I'd be chewing on free gum every day with impunity.
I agree with you on this point. If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. Those who say otherwise are much like the slaveowners, who, attached to their slaves, and not wanting to let go of the power they wield over them, want to maintain an unjust status quo. And whoever says that taking the slaves by force if one must and freeing them is tyrannous, only proves his own tyranny by that assertion.
I think this problem of adultery is, in our day, much like slave ownership was 200 years ago. The root of the problem seems to stem from a ruling class of men who like to treat women as property instead of individuals. Most adulterers out there are men for a reason. And so, they have worked hard to create a culture, and laws, that are permissive of such abuse. Look even at Donald Trump's behaviour towards his wife.
Quoting Benkei
What is tyrannous is subjecting your marriage partner to something they haven't agreed to, THAT, now, is tyrannous, and ought to be punished accordingly. If you want to cheat on your partner, then you should never get married, it's very simple. And if you do get married, then you should divorce beforehand. Who is forcing you to get married? Is someone putting a gun to your head? Of course not. So if you do get married and you end up cheating, then you ought to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to cheat either. If you cannot control yourself, shame on you, and if you actually plan it out, even bigger shame on you. There really is no excuse. There can't be, not without claiming that people are not responsible for their actions. If people are responsible for their actions, then they are responsible for this too and should pay the price. If they cannot control themselves, it is much like not being able to control yourself and going on a murder spree against people who make you angry. It doesn't absolve you of guilt.
So freeing the slaves (and they are slaves, since they are forced to bear consequences that they never agreed to) from undeserved oppression is not tyranny, it is freedom. A society of the future cannot accept adultery in its midsts, just like it cannot accept slavery.
I haven't seen much of any relevancy there.
Quoting Benkei
You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.
I really don't see much of any argument as to why adultery should be treated differently than theft or worse crimes. It's really pathetic to be honest. Look:
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? :s Obviously in certain circumstances adultery would receive a lower punishment than in others. Just like some instances of theft deserve lesser punishment than others. But this doesn't change the fact that they should both be a crime.
Then you tell me about your own relationship, which is fine, but again I see no arguments at all. No arguments about the harmfulness of adultery, no arguments about the deceitfulness involved, no arguments about the effects it has on intimacy, children, and the rest of society, no nothing...
There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like Quoting Agustino
But I will let you know that that personally disgusts me as one of the more immoral statements I've read on this site.
Quoting Agustino
The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you.
Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. Also, as with rape and incest, the disapproval, shock and horror expressed by people's surroundings actually worsens how victims can cope with it. The same holds true for most emotional harms. I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with.
The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. Here's some more reading material:
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369
You assert maintaining the status quo, I assert changing it. Both are equally taking a stance / action. I see no reason for there being a difference between us, merely because yours happens to be the prevailing opinion at this historical juncture.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, and people have been living with slavery for millennia as well! You should get on with the program.
Quoting Benkei
Well, if the respective woman were to attend a psychologist, they would go through a process which would reveal that the cheating has nothing to do with her - she is not a cause of it nor responsible for it - but rather it has to do with the man and his (lack of) character.
Quoting Benkei
:rofl:
Just like slavery is what makes us civilised people and superior to the barbarians, as the Greeks used to say :)
The same old excuses that have always been given historically in support of an unjust and immoral practice. Downplaying the pain, telling everyone else to get on with it, it's part of what makes us human etc.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. But there is a historical progression, as even Engels illustrates in his book, from promiscuity towards monogamy. It seems to be THE requirement for fulfilment in human beings in terms of sexual relationships and intimacy.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
Why is "the personal shit" going to be harmful if the underlying action is so benign or trite?
What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship.
One of the 'planks' in the original gay liberation platform was an understanding that a committed relationship is maintained by the desire of the partners to remain in that relationship, not by an externally enforceable contract, namely marriage; and that a commitment to one person as the most important person in the other's life isn't dissolved by having sex with somebody else. What would dissolve it is making commitments to other people that they are the most important person in one's life.
Granted, this was/is aspirational, and the drive for total respectability that led the gay movement to seek official marriage is altogether in the opposite direction.
None the less, many gay relationships were founded on the principle of mutual commitment - with no added legal enforcement, and last/lasted for life. These relationships seem to be a lot like most long term relationships -- not perpetual bliss, but a working through of ordinary problems as they arise.
A lot of gay men enter into relationships the same way straights enter relationships. Regardless of professions of trust, lust, and love no major commitment is made and at some point the couple go there separate ways. That it didn't work out is not tragic and may not even be unfortunate.
What is more unfortunate for gays and straights alike is when a long-term relationship with mutual commitments breaks up 25 or 30 years later. Chances are the cause of long-term relationships breaking up is the withering of interest, emotional elasticity, and things like mental illness, alcohol or drug addictions... stuff like that, rather than one partner having "adulterous" sex with somebody else.
Nice. Real nice.
I disagree with you. My view emphasises the total commitment that love itself demands from the two lovers for their relationship to be authentic. Namely the willingness to even die for one's partner, a wholehearted giving of oneself to the other completely.
It is in virtue of disturbing THIS commitment that adultery becomes such a crime. It is in light of the failure of this that adultery is disturbing.
So the social commitment, the contractual aspects, etc. those are secondary. The gravity of the offence is spiritual in nature. You can replace spiritual with a Marxian-materialist word, and it will become no less true.
If only you were in charge! But I think you should consider requiring them to wear a scarlet "A." It far more effectively meets the need of the sexually self-righteous to shame others, and it goes without saying it would go a long way towards satisfying the interest of the prurient.
But would fornication be a necessary condition of the crime of adultery? What if a married person spent an inappropriate amount of time with someone not his/her husband or wife, but didn't engage in sexual intercourse with them? What if they just "made out"? Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? Proving actual copulation may be difficult. What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant?
You have to think this out, you see, if you really want to do the job right.
Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Hegel did this? What did Mrs. Hegel say? "Don't believe everything my husband says."
Are you ready to surrender your personality? If so, please do so at our earliest convenience.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/WesternIdentity/status/1023289338287857669[/tweet]
Yes kissing on the mouth + sexts would still consist in adultery. Though obviously less severe than if it's a 6-month long affair that involved everything for example, including hotel bookings and the like.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.
I know what you're trying to say. Too hard to prove. I don't buy it. We can easily prove such things, there is always a trail left. So those people who try to say that it's too difficult to prove, really have no idea how the police (not even mentioning secret services now) work. And especially when dealing with regular folk, who would leave so much evidence behind anyway, it's really not difficult at all. Especially with modern technology.
So I think that we definitely have what it takes to do the job well, if only there was the will to do it. I see this much like the situation was 100 years ago with slavery. Largely, part of the ruling class wants to maintain adultery as legal, as part of their oppression of those weaker than them who cannot defend themselves.
And look, there has to be a punishment, just like for other crimes. I don't see why this is controversial at all. I mean if some guy steals your car, you want them to go to jail, but if they have sex with your wife, ahhh that's all good, no problem - very strange.
@Wayfarer - actually yes, during Communist times, adultery was punished for the most part, that's why it was very rare. It is one thing to permit immoral actions like promiscuity and not legislate against them, and a totally different thing to permit adultery which destroys families, harms children and spouses, and generates social conflict.
Yes, in the process of building a family, sure! I don't see a problem with that. Building a strong community of any kind requires some form of "surrender" and adjustment to mutual goals. Don't you think?
Evidence of what, though? It's necessary, first, to define the crime. What kind of conduct constitutes the crime of adultery? What is it that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless you think that standard should be dispensed with for this new crime)?
Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct?
Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.
Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. But if fornication is required:
May the vehicle be searched?
Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest?
If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.?
I envy those who will prepare law school/bar exam questions when adultery is made a crime
Once the crime of adultery is adequately defined, we may consider whether attempted adultery should be a crime as well, whether adultery should be a felony, the range of sentences available, whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment, whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime, and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself.
Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence.
Codifying laws is a form of blasphemy because it implies that the Bible is not complete. Offending adulterers should be brought to an ordained judge (who should also be tipped). The judge will sort through the matter according to what Jesus would do, which is immediate stoning, I think.
If the case is worth pursuing, then an investigation will begin of the people involved. Phones and text messages will be checked, emails will be checked, hotel bookings will be verified, relevant witnesses will be called to give their testimony, the people involved will be called to give their testimony. Vehicles or whatever may be searched if such is deemed necessary.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes, for the most part fornication is required. But obviously making out for example, and similar types of conduct would also be considered adulterous.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Agreed.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No, only if a relevant court official decides to further pursue the case. The police should only be able to submit their evidence/report to the relevant court, which should decide if further investigation is required or worth pursuing.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
So far the police found SOME evidence which could indicate adultery. They have to take a decision if they will file a report for it, get the testimony of the witnesses, and submit it to court, or not. If they think the evidence requires it, then yes, otherwise no.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Depends. I would say no.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
4 months to 5 years I would say.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
You mean after already being punished, as in repeat offences? Yes, I would say so.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Same crime.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Single crime.
How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex?
How is imprisonment the lesser evil? Where's the balance of harm and justice?
What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe?
Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others.
So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone.
Why not just save us all time and money and cut the noses off of adulterers? Works great as deterrence, and then who's going to want to have sex with the adulterous nose-less freaks afterward?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's not long. Where I'm from, for forgetting to renew your gun license you go 6 months in jail.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A punishment doesn't have to be the lesser evil. That's why it's a punishment. That's why things like PUNITIVE damages exist.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is balanced. Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Multiple repeated offences, long-drawn out affairs, etc.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Irrelevant.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope. This is bullsnit. If I go out on the street wearing a Rolex, I'm not inviting people to rob me.
Let's see some serious arguments if you have any.
Quoting Agustino
Lots of things very seriously negatively affect other people. When a father goes to work in a mine, or on an extended military tour, the wife and children are very seriously negatively affected, emotionally speaking. While it's true that the actions of others can have indirect emotional impacts on us, it is not always the case that our emotional discontent gives us the right to forbid others from taking those actions. Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely.
The law already provides recourse when the marriage contract is broken, but you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults. In this case, your argument is that the future spouses of these individuals (and they themselves)are being seriously negatively affected by the fornication. Is that correct?
I don't exactly see how such a non-affair actually harms anyone. It's clear that consensual sexual intercourse feels good and has been a natural part of human biology and evolution since the dawn of man; sexually transmitted diseases are a risk but we risk disease all the time in daily life; by driving cars we risk death to ourselves and others, but the risk is not significant enough to forbid the action entirely. Any children that are produced from casual adulterous sex are probably better off existing, and so they benefit much more directly than they suffer indirectly from the criminal sex in question.
Maybe family members would be ashamed of you, but the mob-mentality of our family and our family's cultural values need not be legally binding. Sometimes people and families have really shitty cultural values, and we should be free to seek out our own.
My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Though the idea of other people fornicating might cause you emotional distress, your emotions are for you to sort out.
You don't actually have the right to never be offended.
P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive.
But if we make the comparison fair, if purposefully drop your Rolex watch in front of a homeless person and pretend not to notice, and then come back later and accuse them of theft, then you will have incited them (entrapped in this case).
He who has not sinned, cast the first stone.
Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices.
Quoting frank
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A needless generalisation, just like the previous one with the clothing. Some women do, some are offended by the opulence. Not all people have the same preferences.
It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex. No doubt that some women ARE like that, but not all. There are many women out there who find it offensive to be looked at sexually because of the way they dress.
:rofl:
Leviticus 20:10
Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think?
Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough?
Quoting Agustino
So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent?
I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative.
But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime.
Quoting Agustino
You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not.
It's possible to condemn theft and murder while not condemning fornication.
Quoting Agustino
Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals...
Marriage can be between many woman and one man, as spoken by God. If a man needs sex but is unmarried, he should obtain a holy concubine. Animals have sex for reproduction alone, we humans can have it for pleasure. The soul of the prostitute is the soul of the adulterer, and what can be more holy than exercising the divine gift of mutual pleasure.
Each woman who provides this service is a protected, respected wife of the community, and should be treated as such. Monogamy is an impoverished form of our true relationship to the divine, and breeds hate for the wife as property. The commercialisation of this is a sickness, money should not buy people, yet the institution of marriage is compatible with this sickness.
The woman and the man who embody the relationship with the divine the best are the prostitute and the adulterer, the essence of Western civilisation since the Greeks. Moreover, the essence of civilised life from the time of Sumer.
Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently.
In these times, all states as far as I know have what's been called "no fault" divorce, and such things like "irreconcilable differences" are adequate to dissolve marriages, thus sparing people and the legal system much time, effort and money, though quite enough of all those things are nonetheless expended on matters related to divorce such as financial settlements and the custody and care of children. And I believe "fault" divorce may still be available even where "no fault" divorce is as well, though I'm not sure why. Happily, this is an area of practice I've managed to avoid.
I'd suggest that there are various reasons why adultery is not a crime, and that some of those reasons are likely similar to the reasons why the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages is no longer a crime. People probably will no more give up sex than they gave up drinking. There will be adultery, and there will often be adultery. So, the question which will be raised is--if it is made a crime, what kind of resources would have to be devoted its enforcement, and are those resources better spent in the enforcement of other laws?
My guess is many resources, and my opinion would be those resources would soon be thought to be better spent elsewhere. I suspect as a result that it would be a crime which would rarely be enforced, and probably repealed eventually, sooner rather than later. And there are, in fact, civil remedies available; claims can be made for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, consequential damages resulting from them, which may carry with them potential claims for punitive damages. Then there's the amusingly named tort of "criminal conversation." The availability of these claims vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I saw a headline recently in which a court apparently awarded damages in excess of 8 million dollars. And adultery I would think could figure in a court's determination on custody and financial settlement.
I think lying ought be illegal. If everyone always told the truth, so much pain, fraud, and trickery would be avoided. One year for every lie.
So you're basing your moral stance here on old testament law, yeah? Jewish law, right? You practice Judaism? And Jesus did too, right?
No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"?
I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!".
Quoting Sapientia
No it's not hilarious at all, you two are just being ignoramuses. The interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees follow a certain pattern throughout the Bible. The Pharisees always attempt to set up TRAPS for Jesus, and show that he is a false prophet because he does not respect the Law. The Law demands death for adultery under certain given conditions. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say "Stone her", because then he would have broken the law.
https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1277
This is standard commentary, not Sarah Rush BS. But of course, your ignorance of the Bible, your ignorance of how this ties in in the overarching narrative of Jesus, and your introduction of modern biases within the text prevents you from seeing any of this. Instead you interpret it as ridiculous.
Maybe, you can certainly make this case.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It would be, except that, as far as I know, you don't lose "more than half your stuff". And what is "half your stuff" isn't very clear. What if all my stuff is, on paper, owned by my mother, but actually I control it? Clearly I won't lose it. What if I acquired that stuff prior to my marriage? Then again, my wife would not be entitled to it. It is only wealth that is acquired over the duration of the marriage that can be disputed.
I'm not a big fan of those financial punishments because (1) they are relatively easy to avoid, (2) if someone is very rich, it won't affect them much, and if someone is poor, there won't be much to get anyway. So that's why I think we need some other form of punishment.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes - from my observation, force works as a deterrent. It is almost the only way to keep people at a mass level in check. That is why in organisations where obeying rules is of the utmost importance - such as the army - there are very harsh punishments for disobedience. There, disobedience is rare.
In modern democracies though, the ruling class keeps people in check precisely by creating discord in their midsts, and giving them, as the Romans called it, "bread and circus".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I see, then we disagree on this legal principle. This is a much more general matter though, whether the law should be rehabilitative or punitive (or perhaps both). It's a discussion that merits its own thread.
My own view is that the law should, in some cases, be punitive. Those are the cases where it is impossible to render back what has been taken. So if compensatory damages are not possible, because the action has produced such harm that it is impossible to compensate for it, then punitive damages are absolutely necessary. I see part of the process of redemption as being this suffering for one's crimes. So we cannot rehabilitate criminals without also forcing them to go through the suffering that their actions entail.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But what about the justice of the law? Shouldn't the law be just?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well that depends. I'm talking strictly about adultery here, which isn't just consensual casual sex, it is a breach of the marriage agreement, which does directly impact third parties.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure, there no doubt are such women, but not everyone is like this. Some women just like to be pretty and admired, for example, and don't want sex. Obviously being pretty and admired involves being attractive - but it's not the same thing as desiring sex.
I think what is hilarious is your lack of argumentation :)
Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself.
Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do.
I don't understand why some people take Jesus to be a pink-wearing liberal - don't forget that it was Jesus who went angrily in the temple with the whip to kick the money-changers out. Do you disagree that immorality (in the absence of repentance at least) requires punishment?
What was the trap that the Pharisees were trying to set up for Jesus?
You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.
Why would the Pharisees have asked Jesus what to do if they were already following the Law? Again, if you look at through the rest of the Gospel texts, you NEVER find instances of the Pharisees saying something like "Shall we do X?" where X is something in accordance with the Jewish Law. But you always find instances of the Pharisees trying to trick Jesus.
Quoting Sapientia
Why do you reckon Jesus would have intervened if, for example, they were going about their business according to the Law? Didn't Jesus say that He came NOT to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it?
It doesn't really matter whether they were or weren't trying to trick Jesus. If that's what matters to you, then sadly you'll miss the point. Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan.
If your twisted interpretation were right, then Jesus would not deserve any followers, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian.
All this is meaningless drivel. Unprimordial, filtered puritanically. If you want to really understand civilisation you have to go further back to its roots. What took the barbarian Enkidu from the outskirts to the city? Copulation with Shamhat, under the light of Ishtar. The holy copulation measured the man and founded his honour within the traditions of Uruk; creating that unquantifiable debt we all hold to the community and each other.
It is no coincidence that honour, debt and sex are so intertwined; they are a divine triad in which each pair finds expression in the other. Sex and honour express themselves in debt; honour became its price, a subtlety lost by you false heralds of Western civilisation, cherrypicking little myths to suit your heathen agenda. Honour and debt find their expression in the blood-price, the virgin-pawn, the immeasurable excess of the unmarried woman; dealt with through sacred fucking, worth deriving from the promise thereof. Sex and debt mark the power of a man, his greater worth and the influence he has over the reserve of pawns and holy prostitutes; the true purpose of women.
Why? You have provided no explanation or reasons for why this should be the case.
Quoting Sapientia
Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too?
Quoting Sapientia
The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality.
When it comes to sex, men pay and women turn a profit. Men are more compelled to have sex more often. Men are the consumer and women are the merchants. The Pharisees were acting like consumer protection advocates, targeting the merchant, whereas Jesus was more of a social conservative protecting free enterprise. Women have the right to say no or yes about sex. They decide who they will sell too, and therefore decide the outcome in the end.
The opposite is true when it comes to using force. Men are stronger and if a man and woman were to be physically struggling in an ambiguous assault scenario, the guy would be blamed as the aggressor; unscrupulous business practices.
Having sex with Shamhat just made Enkidu aware that he wasn't an animal. He remained in a liminal state until he was fed city food. That's what turned him into a city person.
It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen.
It isn't BS Agustino. It's my religion. If you payed more attention the posts are actually very carefully constructed. You're not making any real arguments, refute my claims.
In some versions it was being fed bread and wine that initiated him. Bread and wine are two ways to store food, the great trick of the city people. If you store food you don't have to wander like an animal.
When Abraham is initiated as God's priest, it's by his being fed bread and wine. Bread and wine show up in other places as well.
That you have to ask why speaks for itself.
Quoting Agustino
Why should it be? Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. Even a non-Christian such as myself can see the merit in that. The standard interpretation is along those lines. You're just trying to be different and to fashion the teachings of Christ to better reflect your own warped thinking. I fear that you have latched on to this nonstandard interpretation that you've found online or in your own imagination or wherever some time ago, and that there's little hope of you relinquishing it.
Quoting Agustino
I didn't say anything about ignoring immorality. That's come from you, not me. And a woman about to be stoned to death is most definitely in need of help. Unless this woman is Wonder Woman or something.
How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?
I haven't ruled out that possibility, but I prefer interpreting this parable in the light of the other ones. If we see that the other encounters with the Pharisees bear a certain structure, then we ought to choose the interpretation which bears the same structure in this case, and not another one. Again, this has to do with faithfully interpreting a text.
Quoting Sapientia
Was Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac when God required it?
Quoting Sapientia
So if one is to interpret ad literam, there would be no laws, because all laws are made by us, who are sinners, to punish other sinners. That makes no sense, it's not a sensible interpretation. Why do you reckon this interpretation makes sense? Do you think that we cannot judge others because we are also sinners? If we cannot judge others, how are we to go about living, since living requires judging others (ie, is he going to steal from me if I hire him, etc.).
It's the lunatic fringe interpretation, so it has no bearing on the illegalization of adultery.
First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.
Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.
Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument.
*sigh*
Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries.
What does that leave you? China? :rofl:
It's not meant to have any bearing. I haven't brought religion in as an argument to criminalize adultery. You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. I have explained to you that (1) you took that phrase out of context, and (2) there is no indication in the Bible that sinners cannot (or should not) judge other sinners - indeed, the whole Old Testament and the laws of Moses involved sinners judging other sinners. And even in the New Testament, when Paul was writing to other Christian communities, it involved judging other Christians, even though Paul was still a sinner. Third, I don't see why a religious command should necessarily be applicable to our social law. If we were to follow the BS you're saying ad literam and out of context, then we would have no laws. If someone steals your car, forget throwing him in jail! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Really? I think your intelligence is better than this.
In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).
I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that.
So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?
One assumes he would say something like:
Matt 5:19 "But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."
Matt 18:21 "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
I could explain to you why Jesus' message doesn't include any advice for creating any sort of legal structure, but I'd have to have some evidence that you've come in out of the evangelical BS zone.
Within specific contexts. Again, you take the injunctions of Christ out of context, and hence you pervert them. You also have:
Here C.S. Lewis explains:
So this interpretation of Jesus as an all forgiving hippie, etc. is utterly criminal to the message of the Gospels. God is righteous & just, and therefore hates sin.
I am not an evangelical.
Jesus does kick ass in Revelations. And of course, the doctrine of hell is pretty punishing.
Imagine that your own child has transgressed and stolen a piece of candy. Would you douse her in gasoline and light her on fire?
The Christian God does this.
It just seems the simple response here is to accept that I'm neither Christian nor a social conservative in the way you define those terms. I certainly wouldn't want to be.
But yes, I think that for unrepentant sinners, hell is the adequate punishment, the punishment that they themselves choose.
Quoting Hanover
The part about Christianity is a deviation from the topic of the thread to answer frank's position.
But no, you don't have to be a Christian to be a social conservative, obviously.
I've lost interest in the discussion.
BTW, this is an awesome lecture series about the New Testament. Check it out.
It seems Jesus could perfectly testify alone since he wasn't alone.
That's of course if you believe in fairy tales.
You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. Review the thread and read the responses to your despotic opinions, the only person humiliating themselves here is you.
Nah. You've just not read me charitably enough. You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. You said the latter yourself, the former is implicit in several of your previous posts (like making a profit on a wedding, imagine!).
What I'm doing is showing that your Christian understanding of marriage and adultery is a perversion of a far better, more primordial faith. As the Sumerian religion and the Greek view of marriage, bride prices and concubines prefigured your religious reading of Western civilisation, all I'm doing is going back a few steps to the pre-Abrahamic understanding. Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. All of this flows from my faith and occult allegiance with the ancient Goddess Ishtar, and I've used an interpretation of one part of the Epic of Gilgamesh to facilitate this.
It's highly authoritative, it flows from my faith and the first principles understanding of culture and morality that I have fostered as a successful international businessman.
This is crap. Yes, obviously the wife does not own herself 100% - that's the purpose of marriage, that each partner owns the other to an extent. If you don't like that, then don't get married.
But this isn't the commodification of women as property, since it applies equally to the men. The woman ALSO has a fundamental right to exclusivity to her man. Have you forgotten about that? Of course you have, because you have to straw man in order to pull this off.
Quoting fdrake
No, that is not the correct placement since it precludes the possibility of "becoming one flesh". The whole of history, as even Engels showed, is a move away from promiscuity towards monogamy. Read it yourself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm
Sure. Did I say that I think we should punish (legally) promiscuity and polygamy? No. Adultery shouldn't be punished for harming the perpetrator, it should be punished for harming the rest of society.
No. Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have.
It is an ancient custom, explicitly not forbade in the Bible, for a man to take more than one wife. They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. Just look at your fellow faithfuls' reaction to polyandry vs their reaction to polygyny, even in the academic scholarship on the topic. The facts are the facts.
Regardless, the Old Testament has it somewhat right, but nowhere near as right as the Sumerian acceptance of communal wives and the sanctity of concubines. As I said, and you have not addressed, with your inevitable strawmen, this is the true divine mandate. A relationship with God is a relationship with the community, and sex is part of that. It is mirrored in ancient honour systems, ancient systems of debt that index ancient economies. Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? This is the charlatanism you always pull, grasping at whatever straw comes to hand to vindicate your heathen baseness and ultimately your own ego - the conceit of the righteousness of the Christian.
There's no way you can grasp the true nature of divinity while mired in that Christian pit of filth.
That is abusive and wrong. It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength. You see it with rich arabs, the Sultans, etc.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, the people in the Old Testament (and the New) are in many regards deeply flawed.
Quoting fdrake
False. What's this?
Quoting fdrake
In the work I've linked to, there are chapters that address the whole development of the family, from pre-history to today.
No it's not, it's a sign of the ancient wisdom in the Old Testament. They knew what they were dealing with.
Just false. If true, true incidentally.
Quoting Agustino
As expected, you're painting symmetries when there's no evidence of it. Then you cherrypick bible quotes to vindicate your personal faith.
We have conflicting notions of divinity, deal with that and don't cite that scripture you agree is flawed.
I never said Scripture is flawed, I said some people in Scripture are flawed. Scripture itself makes this clear.
Focussing on the minutia to belay the point. Stop it. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine.
It is impossible to achieve peak pleasure except within the confines of an exclusive relationship. By its very nature sex is exclusive - it wants to have the other for him/herself.
I repeat. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine. By its very nature, sex is communal and social.
Then why do human beings, and animals too, experience emotions such as jealousy when it comes to sex?
Sexual jealousy is a perversion. It has nothing to do with the nature of sex, it has to do with the selfishness and short sightedness of the individuals involved. We both agree envy is a sin. Look at the theological distinction between jealousy and envy, and you'll see it's the latter. Having lost what you wrongly perceive as yours.
No, I disagree. Sexual jealousy is part of our humanity, and without it we are not human anymore. Sexual jealousy comes naturally, it is not something that has to be taught. Even animals display it.
The call of any sinner is to be understood as typical, as if their perversions and failings are the failings of all. What is natural is sexual pleasure, what is natural is freeform relationships, what is natural is the commonwealth of humanity, and sex is no more exclusive than the opinions of its participants.
You who would take your personal failings and brand them with the divine show the worst in men. The perverts, the hysterics, the hypocrites.
Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though?
I've asked you why such a harsh punishment is needed, and you've said because existing punishments aren't harsh enough.
Quoting Agustino
I'm asking this question seriously: why not just cut the noses off of adulterers then?
It's an extraordinarily powerful deterrent, and if marital laws are of utmost importance, then why not?
Quoting Agustino
I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them).
Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well...
Quoting Agustino
If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with?
And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right? Can't you hear the Pharisee in your own voice, Agu? Jesus Christ.
Quoting Agustino
What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment?
Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. Not to punish them. Death and sickness are a result of sin existing. Jesus' miracles were not the breaking of natural laws but restoring the underlying order of a world without sin as it was before the fall of man. The paraplegic wasn't told to "get up and walk" he was forgiven his sins first and foremost.
So it is for this reason that Canon Law tells us that the innocent spouse may stop conjugal living with the adulterer for a maximum of 6 months. He should petition the Church for a divorce within that time but the law urges the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer.
All this if you believe in fairy tales that is.
With regard to the money-changer story. Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence
Yes, quite possibly. I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. I don't see how your position here is anything less than a hatred for justice and a love of sin.
Quoting Noble Dust
Kicking the money lenders out is punishment.
This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording:
Moreover, you were washed, sanctified and justified is short prose for the fact that God can remove your sins, set you apart from the world and be declared "just" before God (note, that's a couple of grades up from "not guilty" of sin). Even fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, the covetous, the drunks, the revilers and the extortioners can be saved.
Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin.
Of course, all this if you believe in fairy tales.
Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?! :brow:
Quoting Benkei
It's not true that forgiveness is preferred over divorce in this case. God hates adultery more than He hates divorce - that is why adultery is listed amongst the 10 Commandments, which say nothing about divorce at all.
Quoting Benkei
I read it. But I also read the Church Fathers such as Augustine or Aquinas (and other theologians such as C.S. Lewis), and I find their position providing much better arguments. All through human history justice was rendered by force, and in no other way. God Himself, will come in full force in Revelation to render justice. Christians aren't commanded not to judge, but rather to judge rightly -
I really don't understand this modern antipathy to force. It is certainly not Christian, and it is precisely one of the main reasons why injustice and sin are permitted to spread. Governing men takes a strong hand. Without a strong hand you cannot keep evil at bay. And Machiavelli was right - in government it is better to be feared, than to be loved.
I noticed this from business dealings. People respond to threats much better than they respond to kindness. Trying to be kind in business is the way to ruin. Instead, one has to be ruthless - this isn't the same as abusive, one must be just, but that justice has to be enforced by the threat of a big stick.
Quoting Benkei
So then it isn't punishment to stop the possibility of unlawful behaviour by putting adulterers in jail, no?
Quoting Benkei
Out of context.
That passage is precisely about the fact that Christians can judge for themselves, and should not take their internal problems to be judged by the unrighteous.
Quoting Benkei
No - cite me the passage where this is the case. It is only when there is repentance that forgiveness is possible. "Forgiving" someone who persists in their crime is not "righteous" but a sign of great moral weakness and a soft heart - it is immoral.
Because the harm that adultery causes is irreparable, irreversible and cannot be compensated for, and thus, it demands punitive damages, not just the removal of the threat through divorce.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because such a punishment is brutal, and it would say more about us than about the adulterer. It is an inhuman form of punishment.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because it would be unjust and overly brutal.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why? Suffering is what rehabilitates people. Without suffering, rehabilitation is impossible. That is the very biological purpose of suffering, to guide behaviour away from that which causes suffering. If we find a way to extinguish suffering after a crime, then that itself is a great crime.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why do you think so? Also, this is a metaphorical expression suggesting that the punishment ought to be proportional to the harm caused, where this is at all possible.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I agree, but that isn't to say that their injustice should be ignored, is it?
This is one of the most transparent examples of superficially puffing up your own personal opinion to give it an illusory appearance of fact that I have ever stumbled across on this forum. Bravo.
Good luck getting through to him. This is the guy who asked, "Why should it trickle down?".
Did you not see the quote from Engels' book? You must have missed it.
Wow.
Why not? If they were acting in accordance with the law, sentencing both the man and the woman according to 2 witnesses, etc. why would He interfere? Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.
Socially yes, religiously and morally no.
Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to others apart from the people involved, unlike adultery. It is a sin, much like gluttony, that harms only those involved. No problem from a social point of view with that.
Same thing with homosexuality. Families are frequently torn apart by it. Adultery doesnt always cause harm. Sometimes people evolve into open marriages from there. Or there is forgiveness and they move on.
So no. Homosexuality and adultery are about equal in the social consternation department.
Not true. People rarely move to an open marriage because of it, and adultery represents breaking one's promises to another who is a VICTIM. I cannot comprehend how you can side with the abuser. That is the height of moral insanity.
In homosexuality, no one is a victim, there are no vows broken, etc. It's is very much different. That you draw an equivalence between the two only underlines your own perverted views. No wonder the West is in such decline. If folks can't even understand something as morally basic as this, then there really is a problem.
So now you say it isn't the suffering (since homosexuality definitely is associated with family suffering). Its that a promise was broken. Is that right?
It's the combination of things. The suffering, the breaking of the marriage vows, the disrespect of the other person implied, etc. And adultery harms the family worse than homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't affect trust for example.
Homosexuality causes deep grief in some cases. Mothers become sad that they will never have grandchildren. So no, the suffering isn't the issue at all.
It's simply the broken promise. As Cicerionianus said, this could be a civil issue, but not criminal.
I thought you were knowledgeable about Christianity but it is now clear you don't know what you're talking about. Timothy 1:1 15, 1:2 3, John 12: 47, Galatian 4: 3-7. etc. etc.
This does not preclude judgment on the final day. But Jesus did not come to earth to judge but to save sinners. This is so blatantly clear and repeated throughout the Bible and expressed and imparted again and again by the Catholic Church that denying it really only demonstrate the personal grudge you hold against sinners and the bias of your personal views when interpreting the Bible. The Dei Verbum tells you when interpreting SCripture you have to investigate what meaning the writers intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. You are instead using scripture to fit a pre-conceived result. This makes you a sinner yourself because Jesus commands you to forgive the sinner, even if he sins 77 times (Matthew 18:22). And you should heed it as we conclude in Matthew 18: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
Quoting Agustino
Yes it is.
Moreover, the 10 commandments are old testament. It doesn't apply in the way the new testament does. The apostolic writings take pre-eminence. And while adultery is prohibited and is condemnable to death in the old testament, the new testament does not and preaches forgiveness as the better option.
Quoting Agustino
Appeal to authority. I don't see an argument here.
Quoting Agustino
Wonderful. You just equated using force with judging, which are quite obviously different things. Also, your personal experience is besides the point. You might want to reread St Augustine on the use of force. The Sermon on the Mount has a rather clear passage on judging others as well. Try reading that again too.
Quoting Agustino
No. And what kind of messed up reasoning are you going through to see the equivalence there? The equivalent would be stopping the adulterers in the act or barring access to the place they'd plan to have sex.
This doesn't conflict what I said in any way. You're also mightily missing my point. "Washed, sanctified and justified".
Quoting Agustino
Matthew again. I already mentioned it above.
EDIT: I forgot. All this of course only if you believe in fairy tales.
Whether you like it or not doesn't make it false. You are siding with the abuser, and you are protecting the abuser. That is a grave moral offence, and it should be noted. It is much like telling me that "ahh he's a murderer? No worries, we should just forgive him". Where the hell is your sense of justice and morality?
Quoting frank
Nope, this is just wrong. Mothers don't have a contract with their children that the children will have grandchildren. I have no clue what you're talking about now.
Adultery does no more harm than homosexuality does. Therefore harm can't be the problem.
It's just a broken promise. That's all.
Socially yes. But it's also a sin. Which is preferably forgiven by the spouse where the Catholic Church is concerned.
All this if you believe in fairy tales.
Where is the answer to my question? You have failed to answer my question and the rest is an empty red herring.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Benkei
This is false. Jesus clearly stated that adultery is grounds for divorce - in fact, the only such grounds.
Quoting Benkei
And yours is what? Don't you see how ridiculous you are? You give me an article, I cite several sources, and mine is "appeal to authority", and what is yours? Appeal to a weaker authority, obviously.
Quoting Benkei
To begin with, I am not a Catholic. Nowhere does the Bible state that divorce is not morally right in the case of adultery.
The Catholic Church prefers adultery to be forgiven by the spouse?
Nope. Breaking a promise is also a harm. And we're not talking about a perceived harm here, but a real harm. A perceived harm is when you don't act in accordance to my desires. A real harm is when I have a RIGHT that you break by acting in a certain manner.
But a spouse has a RIGHT to demand that you remain loyal and faithful to them.
You can read yourself can't you?
Quoting Agustino
Grounds for divorce does not mean it is the best course of action.
Quoting Agustino
My arguments can be found in the link, which is a short article. You didn't provide sources but names of authors. I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. So unless you're going to give me the exact places where I can find their arguments, you only appealed to authority.
Quoting Agustino
I never stated this wasn't the case. I said you can divorce but the Church prefers the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer. You're getting way to emotional.
I'm happy for you that you're not a Catholic as you'd most certainly burn in hell if you were.
Having a cheating mate hurts like hell. If it becomes apparent that she's happier with the other guy, love demands forgiveness. People who are vengeful never really loved in the first place.
I did. You just didn't read them. For example:
Yes. Canon law tells you you may stop conjugal life as the innocent spouse. You may do this up to 6 months and you can petition the Church for a divorce within that time. If you don't then after 6 months you should move back in and forgive the adulterer. It is laudable in any case to forgive even before that time limit.
Ah, that's good then, I have a great passport for Heaven - don't be jealous!
This is wrong. Vengeance in the case of injustice is the right thing. "I am a vengeful God"
I didn't realize that. So the Church would really like to stay out of it. Wise.
So you announced that you're clueless about Christianity. Now you demonstrate that you don't know what love is.
Makes sense. Christianity is all about love.
No, you demonstrate you have no clue what love is. Love isn't allowing the other to do what they want. If you want to inject drugs in your veins, it is not loving for me to allow you to do that and to "forgive" you.
That is quite false, Lewis is one of the best in the last 100 years.
Yes, that is true. But, as I said, to truly and deeply love someone is to care for their OBJECTIVE well-being. It is not to let them do whatever they want. That's a perversion of love, it is inauthentic love. In truth, as Kierkegaard makes clear, that is self-love masquerading as real love.
Yeesh. :vomit:
Well said, my friend.
Yes, and I can see how such a deception might lead to imagining God would agree that fear is better than love and that one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. Someone's whole moral and religious sense could break down when what drives them and what they need to excuse through disractions is their own avarice. They might even end up claiming that God hates [insert someone else's sin here] when of course God doesn't hate, God is love.
Only in the eyes of Christians that are weak in their fate that they need apologists to shore up their faith. Lewis does not write with the logical rigour of Aquinas for instance.
Yeah, you'd know all about moral insanity, wouldn't you?
Augustine's Confessions seems to me readable only if one enjoys another's efforts to expose himself, as it were. There's something perverse about his eagerness to detail his sins, purportedly for the benefit of others. Rousseau's Confessions are sickly in a similar way.
As for the work of that embodiment of the sin of gluttony, Thomas Aquinas, it's not so bad, though very dry and of course thoroughly derivative of Aristotle.
I have no respect for C.S. Lewis as an apologist as I think he was rather inept. Take, for example, his argument Jesus was God because he said he was God. It goes something like this: Only a lunatic or liar would say he was God if he wasn't God. Jesus wasn't a lunatic, nor was he a liar. Therefore, he must have been God. He came up with it (Lewis, I mean) because he was annoyed with people thinking Jesus was just a great man.
That doesn't really work, though. For one thing, it assumes what was written about him decades after his death is accurate. And Jesus is portrayed as saying he's God or at least his son only in the Gospel of John, generally considered to be the last of the Gospels written This seems flimsy stuff to me.
Well, as long as we're doing the Jesus thing, I thought I'd chime in. Just saying.
Had an agnostic period for a while. It was more of a respect for others misguided belief thing. Now I wish Philosophy of Religion would just die already with all the "proofs for Gods" having been disproved by now.
If one is going to belong to a religious institution, or institutional religion, Catholicism is the way to go--or used to be, in any case. Now, of course, being a Catholic is more like being a member of the Elks, or Lions or Kiwanis. But back in the day, as they say far too often, it's ritual was beautiful, even glorious, filled with ancient forms and ancient mysteries; a link to the old Greco-Roman civilization and culture, with Judaism added, rather awkwardly, I think. What else can a good institutional religion be but beautiful and an artistic expression, appealing to what is natural in us?
Santayana was right about Catholicism, I think: Catholicism is paganism spiritualised: it is fundamentally naturalistic; and the transcendental spirit and the wise statesman may accept Catholicism, where it naturally arises, as a good poetic symbol for the forces and the issues of human life in that phase; not, however, as a scientific revelation of reality or a history of literal facts.
If a couple has an "open marriage" and allows each other to fornicate with third parties, are they doing irreparable harm to one another? If so, please describe it.
Quoting Agustino
Incarceration, especially in America, is also quite brutal.
Quoting Agustino
You're not describing reform or rehabilitation, you're describing threats and counter-threats; conditioning via negative reinforcement. If criminals are just hedonists who respond only to pain and pleasure, then you're teaching them to not get caught, you aren't teaching them why it's morally wrong to do crime.
This position is a perfect mirror of the Christian version of hell; bad people deserve to go to the bad place to suffer badly.
Consider your hypothetical future son, who takes (steals) a chocolate bar from the corner store before they understand what money or property is. They've committed a crime, and so in order to correct their behavior, you would administer punishment right? Instead, you could correct their behavior by teaching them about money and property and explaining why taking the property of others is wrong.
Threats of suffering don't have to be our first moral recourse against transgression. Sometimes they're necessary, but generally only when a vulnerability must be protected (i.e: a grifter is locked up to stop their grifting, a drunk driver is locked up to stop them driving), or as a last resort, but many kinds of transgressions aren't of such a nature. We don't arrest Jay-walkers, and almost never would, even though they break the law. We may fine them which is on some level punitive, but it is also restorative, and compared to being incarcerated, a monetary fine is like a pat on the butt. If I break a contract with an employer, they can potentially sue me if I've caused them damage by doing so, but it's unlikely that I would be sent to jail (example: working for competitors despite a non-competition clause could get me fired or sued, but not arrested, assuming I broke no laws).
Being an agreement, rather than a law, a marriage contract doesn't exist as a broad public safeguard like actual laws do, it mediates individual relationships. Their main function is to protect confidence in the emotional, physical, and financial security of a relationship by enumerating expectations, shared authorities, and offering recourse when they are not upheld. By cheating with another man, your wife can cause you indirect emotional pain, and possibly direct financial suffering, and this would be adequate grounds to have the contract dissolved (financially in your favor if your spouse is at "fault"). The financial suffering being repayed via the circumstances of the divorce, all that's left is the indirect emotional suffering of having been cheated on, but I don't think indirect emotional suffering in and of itself is something that we should seek to balance for the sake of justice.
Sometimes people feel emotional suffering for different reasons. You might feel emotional suffering at the thought of your future wife with another man, but some men do not (open marriages aren't harmful). In order to cause your ex wife similar amounts of suffering to teach her a lesson, we might have to lock her up for the full 5 years and beyond, depending on how hard you took it and how hard of a hypothetical woman she actually is. Possibly the divorce and or loss of custody alone would cause your hypothetical future ex-wife much more emotional suffering than you ever experienced as the result of her infidelity, in which case, ought we let her go free?
What if you were secretly unhappy in your marriage (with no kids) and upon finding out that your wife cheated you are actually filled with happiness and joy, because now you know you can file for divorce and keep the house. Should she be sent to jail for adultery?
If I'm a party clown, and you contract my services to perform at your future son's birthday event, and I break the contract, thereby causing your son and by extension you emotional suffering and distress and financial loss, should I be sent to jail? If not, why?
Quoting Agustino
Actually, this parable suggests that the punishment ought to be the crime. Don't you at least find that to be slightly ironic? The hard learned truth of this parable is that it doesn't reduce crime but instead perpetuates it.
Some notions of justice actually do seek punishments that fit the crime, such as those which restore damage done or rehabilitate the offender (i.e: community service for a vandal, anger management for verbal harassment (where appropriate), a psychiatric hospital for the pathologically violent/dangerous, financial settlements for financial (and sometimes emotional) damages). When a litigant seeks punitive damages against an individual or corporation, it only makes sense to grant them when it is necessary to correct behavior of the defendant and deter other parties from engaging in the same behavior. In the case of adultery, what can punitive incarceration solve which compensatory or punitive damages cannot? How is revoking someone's freedom an appropriate punishment for them having caused their spouse and/or children and/or friends and family and/or fans who really wanted Brad and Angelina (Brangelina) to make it, some emotional distress?
Since when is mere hurt feelings grounds for incarceration?
Quoting Agustino
It kind of does yes. We should not lock up a father who stole bread to feed his children for 6 months. It would be more rehabilitative, more restorative, and generally better in every way to instead compensate the store for the loss of bread, offer assistance to the father toward getting a job, give him food for his children, and then the tax-payers can pocket the many thousands of dollars saved on expensive prisons and imprisonment.
I mean, when the father gets out of prison, if he still needs to provide for his children, and stealing is the only way for him to do so, would he likely not steal again?
America already incarcerates more people for more reasons than any other nation on the planet, and its prisons are notoriously expensive and low quality places of suffering where recidivism is endless and rehabilitation non-existent. And you want to start locking up people for having affairs now too?
So Donald Trump should be in jail then, correct?
What makes you say that? For an institution that prides the status quo, I don't see how much has changed. It may be that other things have changed and not the Roman Catholic Church.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, a source of horror and bloodshed the world over.
That seems to have been the case for institutional Christianity generally, I would say, and was not peculiar to the Catholic Church. Or perhaps more accurately, it has been the case with the followers of institutional Christianity generally. It's a function of what Christianity did not derive from paganism; Christianity's exclusiveness and intolerance, which Christians that obtained political power brought with them into government. The Catholic Church was beautiful and artistic to the extent honored its pagan roots, but the beautiful and artistic can also be cruel.
It changed when it abandoned its ritual, ceremony and liturgy. In other words, when it changed the manner of its public worship. I had the misfortune of attending a funeral mass a short time ago. It's been some time since I attended a mass of any kind, but the ceremony, the songs sung, the language used, are dull, colorless, vapid, commonplace. I have no problem with the use of English (or whatever language) rather than Latin, though I think Latin is more attractive as a spoken language. The King James version of the Bible is very well written, and can be poetic, even. Modern translations are monotonous when read, agonizing when spoken. There seems nothing spiritual about it, to me. It's like attending a meeting of a the local Rotary.
You are both thoroughly mistaken when you think that love does not include hatred, or that to love someone means to act as they want you to act.
Kierkegaard writes:
Quoting Baden
That doesn't mean God doesn't hate. For example: Proverbs 6:16-19, Exodus 20:5, etc.
Quoting Baden
It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless.
Quoting Baden
I didn't claim that.
Quoting Baden
I disagree... this is so wrong. Success in business takes many of the same qualities that are required to be a moral person. Discipline, being ruthless, being independent and not following the crowd, etc.
Probably a language thing but there is no "good sense" for ruthlessness because that is devoid of compassion. You just seem to mean strict.
The comment in itself is devoid of content because it's very unclear under which circumstances you meant it to apply. Certainly not all because that would be stupid. I'm all for holding people to their word (eg. Be strict) but before there's a contract ruthlessness gets you nothing and strictness very little. It's just not a good negotiating strategy as it would never result in a win - win as you'll be too focused on your own requirements. You only need to be strict with regard to your bottom line in that respect, the rest should be all flexibility. That's some free advice. In any case, your personal experiences are worthless as an argument to begin with.
Also, I was wondering whether you'd want to retract your conclusion earlier that Tibetans are savages or whether I'm free to conclude you're a discriminating (in the bad sense) person. It will save us a lot of time in future discussions if you could clear that up.
What? :rofl: :vomit: If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? What was Jesus, just another Jewish teacher? Upholding the old Jewish law? I'm assuming you haven't read any of the gospels? Again, are you professing Judaism, Agu? Specifically, an old, outdated form of Judaism which no one else professes? That interpretation makes this gospel anecdote completely uninteresting and not worth recording in the first place, within the context of Christianity as a historical religion. It would be just another moment in time in which Jewish teachers quarreled over the Tanakh, and then came to a consensus. Status quo maintained. Perpetrators stoned. Nothing interesting to be learned; no new wisdom, no heretofore unheard-of divine message. I'm shocked at how un-Christian you're interpretation of that passage is, for someone who claims to be a Christian.
Sure.
Quoting Noble Dust
Have YOU read the Gospels?
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-woman-caught-in-adultery.html
I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite?
The difference is that I'm not a Christian.
Quoting Agustino
I hope I'm called least in the kingdom of heaven.
This is what you should have highlighted in the context of what we're talking about.
He didn't claim the opposite of abolishment.
Well yes, so you are going against the words of Jesus.
Quoting Noble Dust
What's the opposite? He said He came to fulfil the Law. Furthermore, that:
Yes. I disagree that such a union can ever be considered a marriage, in any sense of the term. The harm comes from failing to achieve the intimacy that is possible in an exclusive relationship where each partner is 100% devoted to the other. To add more details to this, in failing to actualise a potential of the human being, they do irremediable harm to each other.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
By catching them, you are teaching them that they will be caught for their injustice, and will get punished for it. Why do you think that the act of getting caught doesn't also reinforce the belief that they will get caught for wrong-doing? For the masses of men, their beliefs are influenced by these social settings. So the criminal will probably change his beliefs as a result of understanding the power of Justice, and then rationalise it in some way.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Bingo.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I correct them by (1) teaching them, (2) telling them to return the chocolate, pay for it, and apologise. But if they repeat the offence, then they will get punished, because they should have known better.
Committing a crime out of ignorance is one thing, and committing a crime out of volition, in full knowledge that it is a crime is completely different. By the time people get married, they are sufficiently intelligent not to commit such a crime (such as adultery) out of ignorance.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, they do have to be the first moral recourse against transgressions that are willed, despite knowing better. Where there is ignorance which leads to the transgression, then yes, threats of suffering are not necessary.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
In any business dealing, it is suggested that if the law fails, then matters will be resolved some other way. For example, if you break your contract with your employer, they may use their influence to ensure you cannot secure employment with companies in the same industry.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It does, any contract is legally binding.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The fact that you may end up profiting from a crime doesn't make it any less of a crime.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Damage is reparable and not that extensive. You can pay back our dough.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I disagree - you're reading it too literarily. The idea is that the punishment will be proportional to the gravity of the offence.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Incarceration is a form of punitive damage that is awarded in this case. I find it extremely appropriate, not only is there significant emotional distress for the spouse, but the breaking of a contract combined with a lot of strain and TRAUMA on the children and the family. It is life-altering. It's also not something we want to spread in our society, and we need to discourage it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, I think when people break the law, and the law requires that they stay in jail for a time, then they need to execute their sentence. In cases such as the case presented above, the punishment will be lower, maybe the minimum sentence for theft, if this was the first occurrence. But I think there must be a punishment, otherwise we give off the idea that people will be let go of without any punishment whatsoever. Again, do you consider being poor as an adequate excuse for theft?
How is "failing to achieve 100% intimacy" actually harmful? You've equated "not actualizing one's full potential" with "irredeemable harm". If I'm gathering firewood, and I don't actualize my full potential by gathering all the firewood I can possibly gather, have I done irredeemable harm to myself?
If two people are in a happy open-marriage, happier than they would be if they were single, how can that be considered harmful? If the 100% intimacy is a good thing, then isn't 50% intimacy half as good?
Quoting Agustino
There are two conflicting ways of preventing crime we're discussing: Your way is to use the threat of violence and incarceration as deterrent, and my way is to try and address the root contributory causes of crime to begin with. My way reduces crime without causing unnecessary additional suffering, and your way uses additional suffering as a matter of course. Your ethical framework is more likely to destroy a transgressor than to turn the other cheek or rehabilitate, which is somewhat ironic given that you're the Christian, and I, the atheist.
So, when you encounter a petty thief who steals because of hunger, you would lock them up in a place of suffering as deterrence, whereas I would offer them food so that they don't have to steal. You would incarcerate a drug addict for possession, whereas I would send them to a detox facility/hospital/therapy.
In response to rising gang violence, you would invest in prisons, guards, and guns, whereas I would invest in schools, social assistance programs, decriminalization of drugs, and economic development projects in afflicted communities. We still need a police force, and dangerous or violent criminals must be captured for our own safety, but our fundamental approach to crime differs in the same way that old testament fire, brimstone and condemnation differs from new testament forgiveness, redemption, and salvation. You blame individuals for their actions completely, such that it would make sense to cut off the hand of a petty thief in a framework that is at times intuitive-utilitarianism and at other times obsequiously Aristotelian: "It's OK to cut off the right hand of petty thieves because their crimes are their own fault, it stops them from stealing, and it deters other people from stealing". You might object to the brutality of cutting off hands (but not to the brutality of American prisons) for mere petty theft, but you're intuitively comparing the gravity of petty theft to the gravity of losing a hand, completely subjectively, just like you deem adultery to be of equal gravity to being incarcerated for 5 years.
If adultery was a dangerous (significantly harmful) and violent sort of crime (it isn't), such that we needed to incarcerate adulterers for our own safety, we should also need to investigate the motivations of the adultery in question so that the "punishment" we administer actually addresses the causes of their crime (rehabilitates them). If, for instance, an individual was found to have an over-active libido (or some sort of hormonal imbalance) then hormone suppressors might be the only way to actually prevent them from committing adultery. If the spouse was sexually and emotionally unavailable to any reasonable degree, then this could be considered a mitigating factor in that sexual and emotional neglect can cause people to seek fulfillment elsewhere. People convicted of adultery might also be able to file a class action lawsuit against any advertisement or media company which produces content of a sexually provocative nature, in that it could be considered some kind of corruption of innocence or promotion of crime.
Once adultery is committed, and a divorce occurs, since they're no longer capable of committing adultery and actually doing any harm (casual sex among the unmarried is not sufficiently harmful that you think it should be a crime, correct?) why even bother keeping them incarcerated? If the spouse who was cheated on doesn't want their partner to be incarcerated in an attempt to reconcile, must the law be applied regardless?
Quoting Agustino
This amounts to vengeful sadism. You get a pleasurable feeling of having satisfied justice when bad people suffer. It's un-Christian to judge, and it's un-Christian to torture.
Quoting Agustino
Humans are complex creatures who aren't either "totally ignorant" or "in full knowledge", in fact we're all somewhere in-between. When we're physically attracted to others, sometimes we actually become less aware of other things (such as the ramifications of crime). Inebriation is especially good at turning us ignorant...
Quoting Agustino
Contracts generally come with stipulations about what happens if the contract is broken or dissolved. Marriage being an agreement between two people, why would they want the penalties to be incarceration for adulterous breach of contract? (You can have infidelity ("lifestyle") clauses in marriage contracts. For instance, Jessica Biel gets paid 500k every time Justin Timberlake cheats on her, but, they could not stake their physical freedom as a penalty for such a clause (because it's not ethical to incarcerate someone unless they've committed a crime or crimes worthy of incarceration)). In any case, making the adulterous breach of marriage contracts and civil unions a criminal act is a sweeping generalization that undermines the freedom of two individuals to make an agreement that suits them (i.e: an open marriage, or a marriage where if one of them cheats, they're allowed to dissolve the marriage without the adulterer being sent to prison).
You equate with and define adultery as a necessarily harmful and insidious crime (in the past you've compared it to cannibalism) making you ready to tyrannically dictate the sexual habits and freedoms of all other humans because you know whats best for them.
Quoting Agustino
Then why don't I go to jail for breaching our birthday party clown contract?
Why do contracts not supersede constitutional rights and criminal law?
(contracts are individual safeguards of specific agreements, and they do not circumvent the law. Laws are a kind of broad public contract that we've all ostensibly agreed to, and they take primacy over private contracts. (i.e: you cannot contract your rights away))...
Quoting Agustino
But you haven't actually answered the question. If you were in no way harmed by your ex-wife's adultery (you benefited), given that clearly no irreparable or irredeemable harm has been done, you would want her to go to jail and suffer anyway, because it could have upset you emotionally, and others need to be deterred. Correct?
Quoting Agustino
We need to discourage a lot of things because sometimes they lead to hurt feelings (capitalizing "trauma" doesn't change the fact that this is upset emotions we're talking about, not actual (direct) physical or emotional abuse) but that doesn't mean we should lock everyone up who deviates from our vision of perfect health. Infidelity already discourages itself because it ends marriages. Breaking out the whip is pure revenge.
Quoting Agustino
If we help a starving homeless person instead of incarcerating them as deterrence, this doesn't mean we're sending the signal to everyone else to begin shoplifting. Making an example out of the homeless person trying to survive or the very poor person who steals because they endure chronic hunger is a severe injustice. Here we have someone who already endures suffering on a daily basis, perhaps through no great fault of their own, and you think causing them more suffering is going to magically fix them, or that crucifying them as an example to others is somehow a justified course of action. Where is your understanding? Your compassion? Your Christianity?
Quoting Agustino
I consider it a mitigating factor, and depending on the level of poverty and the circumstances of the individual, yes, it can be adequate to excuse the crime entirely.
As a rule, a contract to do something which violates the law is void, or voidable, on public policy grounds. So, for example, a contract to sell one person to another is unenforceable; it doesn't exist in the law, it isn't binding. To give another example which better fits in what seems the overwhelming focus of this thread, i.e. sex, a contract to sell sexual services would be void in most jurisdictions.
The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal, state and local governments from impairing rights and obligations arising out of contracts which are legal, however. A contract to violate the law wouldn't be legal.
Divorce law is not something I practice. However, the effects of marriage on property rights is something that impacts what I do now and then, and I know enough of the law in that area to fairly say that marriage in the law is treated as more in the nature of a partnership than a contract. This has led me to propose in the context of disputes regarding whether same sex marriages are really marriages that all marriages should be called domestic partnerships or unions for purposes of the law, as that is just what they are for legal purposes, and nothing more.
The institutional religions and the religious would then be free to say what they wish to say, require whatever rituals, vows, incantations they wish to require and impose whatever conditions they think appropriate regarding what is a marriage for their purposes, but it would be more clear than it is now that what the religious insist are marriages is not governing as far as the law is concerned.
The crime of adultery being proposed in this thread has nothing to do with marriage as defined in the law. It at most would result in the dissolution of a legal marriage and possibly impact issues related to custody, financial settlement and support. It's similar to sexcrime, as conceived by Orwell in his 1984, as it would make criminal any sexual conduct engaged in by a married person with someone other than his/her husband or wife.
Well this is precisely the problem. The moment you allow happiness to be interpreted as subjective, something defined by the subject, from that moment, anything goes. There is no God (objective standard) - thus anything goes.
If individual X thinks that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that murder makes them happy, then they are right. If individuals X and Y think that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. If they feel that an open marriage makes them happy, then they are right. Once we reach this point, then we cannot dispute the subjective assertion that is being made. Whatever a subject claims is the supreme truth - indeed, the subject's re-presenting WILL has been made the supreme determinant of good and evil. Their will re presents reality as it wants it to be.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I can consider it harmful because I disagree that happiness is something that can be subjectively determined. Rather, happiness is something objective, and has nothing to do with what a person thinks about it. A person can be, and often is self-deceived. Indeed, the person who is so self-deceived that he perceives himself as happy, when in truth he is not happy, is in a worse state than someone who is in conscious misery (check Kierkegaard on this point - conscious despair vs unconscious despair).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, my way views suffering as essential to redemption. It is only when an individual accepts that they deserve to suffer, and willingly and gladly embrace that suffering, saying, with Nietzsche's overman, one more time, again and again, I deserve this, that they can start on the path to redemption.
You view evil as the result of ignorance, I view evil as the result of a corrupt will. Since evil is the result of a corrupt will, education is of no help. More education will not cure a corrupt will. We're back to the problem that Socrates and the Greeks tried to address - whether sin is the result of ignorance, or something else. You side with the Greeks - sin is ignorance, and gnosis, knowledge, is what is required to fix it. I side with the Christians - sin is the result NOT of ignorance, but of a corrupt will. As St. Paul writes:
So the problem isn't that people don't know what is good and what is evil. No, not at all. People have, metaphorically speaking, eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - they know what is good and what is evil, but they choose the evil nevertheless. That is the moral problem in its essence.
Of course that, as one persists in evil, it is totally possible that one's will, will also corrupt one's intellect. Then we reach the maximum level of despair, which is unconscious despair, with a very slim possibility of redemption, since the sufferer identifies himself or herself as happy. Then the will has completely enslaved one's intellect, to the point that one cannot see clearly, and sees evil as good, and good as evil.
Going back to the point. Look at Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov. It is only when he admits his guilt, turns himself in to the police, and effectively demands to be punished that redemption is at all possible. Indeed, it is the suffering which redeems him. Without the suffering, and without acceptance of the suffering as just and necessary, no redemption is possible. So long as one tries to escape suffering, one has not overcome one's selfish will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think it's much more of a binary choice than a gradation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why do you reckon it's un-Christian to judge? What about:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Several points. I think being physically attracted to others in some circumstances is a sign of immaturity. A person who is married for example, but finds that they are physically attracted to other women is frustrated - there is something wrong with them, as if they haven't grown up, and they're still a 15 year old who doesn't know any better.
In addition, it is true that drinking dims the intellect. But at the same time, if one knows that one is such that drinking may lead them to commit sin, then they should not drink. Preventing temptation is often more important and more relevant than resisting temptation, and it has to do with knowing yourself. It is a slippery slope, you should not play with the fire. If you know that other women attract you, for example, and you are married, then you ought to stay away from having alone time with other women, because it clearly is dangerous for you. This has to do with self-knowledge, but also requires humility. If you are proud, and think that you can withstand any temptation, then you will fail.
Answering the rest later.
So for instance, a lifestyle clause in a marriage contract or prenup which stipulates incarceration as penalty would be unenforceable and voidable.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
This is essentially one of the points I'm making to Agustino. "Breaching contracts" isn't a criminal action per se. To legally justify incarceration adultery would have to be specifically defined in penal code as criminal. If it was indeed the case that adultery (defined as sex with someone other than one's spouse, if married) was a crime, then almost nobody would get married, and couples would ritualistically move in and out of each other's home to avoid being considered a common law spouse. If in the case Agustino's argument relies mainly on the breach of the marriage agreement itself, then people could simply alter their marriage agreements to allow for extra-marital sexual activity.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
If only humans wern't so damn ritualistic, superstitious, traditional, nostalgic, etc...